I don't know what to tell you, ..."..... First, relatively few drivers have to see me in order to avoid hitting me,because their path has no chance of conflicting with mine.
italics added....cars, no chance of conflict????
Nice one, mr head. bike riding in a fantasy land again, i see.
mr head, if and when you ride, seems you use this paranoid technique of "Don't trust, yield anyway" that somehow convinces you drivers a) see you always, and b) virtually every driver respects your savvy choice of lane position? all waves and smiles, nods and winks, as you describe your driver/car interactions.. Is this somewhat accurate?
and you believe this is 'educating' the drivers?
None of your paraniod techniques indicate you should ignore a properly accommodated roadway with velotransit lane striping, but you remain convinced otherwise. it's almost as if you want to ride on the wrong side of the road, by ignoring the velotransit lanes.
we've gone thru the serge's puzzles and the A&S photo quizzes all last summer. and heads' insistance of ignoring a well provided bike lane despite all rationale to the contrary, makes his 'notions' about driver education even more laughable, as he as a 'cyclist' cannot read the stripes on a road.
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 08:53 AM
First, relatively few drivers have to see me in order to avoid hitting me, because their path has no chance of conflicting with mine.
italics added....cars, no chance of conflict????
Nice one, mr head. bike riding in a fantasy land again,
mr head, if and when you ride, you use a paranoid technique that somehow convinces you drivers a) see you always, and b) virtually every driver respects your savvy choice of lane position? al waves and smiles, nods and winks, as you describe your driver/car interactions.. Is this somewhat accurate?
Does anyone tell you you are delusional in your real life, or is it just on the internet?
Yes, Beck, with MOST (not all!) cars on the road AT ANY GIVEN TIME, there is no chance our paths will conflict.
First, consider the quarter that is same-direction, ahead of me (far enough so that even a sudden braking by them would not affect me) and traveling faster than me. No chance.
Next, consider anyone in same-direcion traffic behind the car that is behind me. They would have to go through the car behind me in order to get to me. No chance.
Consider all the cars going the opposite direction that are already behind me. No chance.
Consider all the oncoming cars that are still too far to be considered a hazard (to be reassessed continually, but the issue is assessing who poses a real risk of path conflict in the very near future). No chance.
What that leaves (for the most part) is the guy behind you (if any), and anyone up ahead who might be turning into or across your path. That's where your attention should be.
In other words, imagine a button on your handlebars that would cause all cars with which you have no chance of colliding in the next 0-20 seconds to disappear, so that you could focus on the few (if any) that do pose a threat. That's what I'm suggesting we should be doing in our minds as we're riding, identify those cars that would remain if we did have and did push such a button, to focus our vigilance - and need to be conspicuous - where it is needed the most. Those are the drivers with whom I want to be verifying that they see me. Those are the ones I'm watchful for in case they overlook my presence.
How about you?
Bekologist
06-09-06, 09:00 AM
Do you have one of those handlebar buttons?
noisebeam
06-09-06, 09:05 AM
Consider all the oncoming cars that are still too far....
Also consider the cars in NY, OK, PA, when you are on Miramar in San Diego. No chance. ;)
In fact the good news is that you only need to concern yourself with ~.000004% of vehicles in North America at any given time. Such a small percentage, its hardly even worth worrying about. ;)
Anyway, my way of saying welcome back HH.
Al
Bekologist
06-09-06, 09:08 AM
Is it like an "easy" button?
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 10:05 AM
No, Beck, I don't, but sometimes I imagine that I do, and imagine which cars and other threats would remain if I pushed such a button, just to sharpen my mind to be better at paying attention where attention needs to be paid.
In fact the good news is that you only need to concern yourself with ~.000004% of vehicles in North America at any given time. Such a small percentage, its hardly even worth worrying about
Actually, the cars you need to worry about are often even just a relatively tiny percentage of those around you (often none of the cars around you are threats you need to pay attention to). My point is to identify and focus on those you need to focus on.
I'm essentially describing the use of IPDE (http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/drivered/sgi/pdf_files/ipde_from_sgi_drivershandbook_2001-2.pdf) by cyclists in traffic.
I remember learning (and making fun of) IPDE in high school driver training. When I recently found the link on it, I realized not only do I practice it while driving, but constantly while cycling. This might explain why I appear to be more comfortable in traffic than most other cyclists. If you viewed traffic as one big monolithic threat, it would be initimidating indeed. IPDE is a process by which you break it down to only those elements which are hazards.
genec
06-09-06, 10:29 AM
In other words, imagine a button on your handlebars that would cause all cars with which you have no chance of colliding in the next 0-20 seconds to disappear, so that you could focus on the few (if any) that do pose a threat. That's what I'm suggesting we should be doing in our minds as we're riding, identify those cars that would remain if we did have and did push such a button, to focus our vigilance - and need to be conspicuous - where it is needed the most. Those are the drivers with whom I want to be verifying that they see me. Those are the ones I'm watchful for in case they overlook my presence.
How about you?
Tend to agree with you here... why sweat those vehicles that are "out of range."
One question on this. Do you "sweat" those "in range" vehicles on your bike the same way you do when driving?
Of course the faster the traffic and the more lanes there are, the more opportunity for vehicles to come "into range," which is why many cyclists (myself included) look for quieter areas to ride... just keeps down the concentration factor.
Bekologist
06-09-06, 10:29 AM
Actually, the cars you need to worry about are often even just a relatively tiny percentage of those around you (often none of the cars around you are threats you need to pay attention to).
that stands counter to every defensive driving notion i've ever heard of.
regardless, this thread isn't about "EASY" buttons you alleviate all traffic hazard in your imagination with, head.
its notions about educating drivers by the less than 1% of cyclists you consider are doing it 'correctly'. is this one of those "hundreth monkey" schemes? a critical mass of bicycle powerweavers showing the drivers we are wise to their car driving tricks...?'
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 10:45 AM
One question on this. Do you "sweat" those "in range" vehicles on your bike the same way you do when driving?
"Sweat" is your term, not mine. I don't "sweat" those vehicles whether on my bike or in my car.
As I read over the IPDE document the other day (linked above), I realized I use IPDE (which, again, i learned in high school) identically whether in my car or on my bike. It's ingrained and mostly unconscious (like anything once you practice and learn it). I suspect, though I'm not sure, that sometimes "verification that they see me" is a bit harder to achieve when on a bicycle.
Also, because I'm generally moving slower than other traffic, I am a bit more concerned about those behind when I'm on a bike, but that's because I'm slow moving, not because I'm on a bicycle per se. The marginally increased concern is similar to what I have experienced when driving any other slow vehicle (Honda Trail bike, '71 VW van on a long uphill, rented moving van, etc.).
why many cyclists (myself included) look for quieter areas to ride... just keeps down the concentration factor.
Yes, I call it the yearning for the country road or bike path aura while riding in traffic. Choosing a quieter street is fine, but when you allow yourself to fall into that mindless relaxing frame of mind while in traffic, which I believe riding in a bike lane tends to do, it's not a good thing. Even on that quiet street, you have to keep sharp for people suddently pulling out of blind driveways, etc. I think riding in traffic particularly without a bike lane helps the cyclist from inadvertently getting sloppy with his vigilance... With practice, there's not that much to pay attention to. And if you learn IPDE, it becomes easier and easier, second nature, like anything else. Read the doc (it's pretty short). Here's the link again:
By the way, I do plan on responding to Forester on this issue on the coalition list.
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 11:04 AM
Actually, the cars you need to worry about are often even just a relatively tiny percentage of those around you (often none of the cars around you are threats you need to pay attention to).
that stands counter to every defensive driving notion i've ever heard of.
Maybe you haven't heard of very many defensive driving notions?
For example, I know IPDE (http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/drivered/sgi/pdf_files/ipde_from_sgi_drivershandbook_2001-2.pdf) has been around for at least 30 years, and developing the ability to continually filter out and focus on the relatively few actual relevant potential hazards from the myriad of irrelevant distractions is a key theme.
genec
06-09-06, 11:13 AM
"Sweat" is your term, not mine. I don't "sweat" those vehicles whether on my bike or in my car.
As I read over the IPDE document the other day (linked above), I realized I use IPDE (which, again, i learned in high school) identically whether in my car or on my bike. It's ingrained and mostly unconscious (like anything once you practice and learn it). I suspect, though I'm not sure, that sometimes "verification that they see me" is a bit harder to achieve when on a bicycle.
Also, because I'm generally moving slower than other traffic, I am a bit more concerned about those behind when I'm on a bike, but that's because I'm slow moving, not because I'm on a bicycle per se. The marginally increased concern is similar to what I have experienced when driving any other slow vehicle (Honda Trail bike, '71 VW van on a long uphill, rented moving van, etc.).
Yes, I call it the yearning for the country road or bike path aura while riding in traffic. Choosing a quieter street is fine, but when you allow yourself to fall into that mindless relaxing frame of mind while in traffic, which I believe riding in a bike lane tends to do, it's not a good thing. Even on that quiet street, you have to keep sharp for people suddently pulling out of blind driveways, etc. I think riding in traffic particularly without a bike lane helps the cyclist from inadvertently getting sloppy with his vigilance... With practice, there's not that much to pay attention to. And if you learn IPDE, it becomes easier and easier, second nature, like anything else. Read the doc (it's pretty short). Here's the link again:
By the way, I do plan on responding to Forester on this issue on the coalition list.
I used the term "sweat" as convenient shorthand... hence the reason it was in quotes.
I use the IDPE method too... but either have long forgotten the term or different terms were taught to me in all the defensive driving/motorcycle classes... the skill set is the same.
The other thing I do beyond "defensive driving" is drive conservatively. In other words, one could defensively drive and easily weave in and out of traffic and drive over the speed limits (as in the methods used to evade terrorists by professional drivers) or you can use safe following distances, signal ahead, drive at or below speed limits... etc.
Now back to cycling... the biggest difference I find between driving and cycling is the fact that I must remain more vigilent. I rarely for instance consider opening doors a hazard while driving... messy for sure, but not a hazard to me and my car. Lane position for me on a bike is far far more dynamic, and therefore more important in what it conveys and what visibility it offers. Not so in a car... where there is limited oportunity for varied lane position... with the exception of intersections.
Visibility is a huge issue... and the few instances that cross my mind at the moment can be a hazard either way (car or bike), but I have found that I seem far more visible to other motorists while I am driving... hence the need for greater vigilance on bike.
Now all these things together can mean that some drivers will not choose to bike simply because it requires more attention for them.
Oh as far as the bike lane and country road aura... about the only time I get the country road "aura" is when there are no cross streets or intersections or other objects that can possibly fall into a "predictable" zone for me... in other words, the road ahead has to be empty. Now this indeed does happen from time to time on certain stretches of my ride... Approaching motorists can be detected by sound. This is probably where you go into Powerweave (to borrow a battered, but easy, term from Bek). I might do this if there are blind corners involved... especially on a country road.
Bekologist
06-09-06, 11:22 AM
i want to know where to get one of those buttons - Do they come with a clamp for oversized handlebars?
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 11:29 AM
Now all these things together can mean that some drivers will not choose to bike simply because it requires more attention for them.
That's very true. And they should also choose not to ride motorcycles in traffic, because their higher speeds require even more acute demands on attention. If you read the IPDE doc, you'll note that one of the things it says if you're too tired to use IPDE, slow down.
The other thing is that bike lane stripes (and riding off to the right for that matter, stripe or no stripe) do not alleviate the "attention load" or need to use IPDE one iota, and to the extent that they make the cyclist feel like they do, the cyclist is being fooled. That's not good.
And it's IPDE not IDPE (Forester made the same typo). You have to Predict what may happen before you Decide what to do.
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 11:33 AM
Now all these things together can mean that some drivers will not choose to bike simply because it requires more attention for them.
One more thing on this.
For someone who falls into this category, how is he better served?
Build bike lanes so that he feels (falsely) that he does not need to pay so much attention to traffic.
Market and provide training to foster an ability within him to get better at and more comfortable with paying the necessary attention in traffic.
genec
06-09-06, 11:48 AM
One more thing on this.
For someone who falls into this category, how is he better served?
Build bike lanes so that he feels (falsely) that he does not need to pay so much attention to traffic.
Market and provide training to foster an ability within him to get better at and more comfortable with paying the necessary attention in traffic.
Bike lanes never mean having to pay less attention to traffic... they simply demark traffic.... and alert motorists that cyclists will be present.
Of course you expect motorists to always expect cyclists... but based on the fact that even trained police do not know the laws nor understand cyclists on the road, it would be quite difficult to also expect non professionals to expect cyclists on the road.
Market and provide all the training you can... to those you can reach... what about the others (which are probably the majority of cyclists)?
Teach motorists that cyclists have rights and to expect them always on any road, and you can eliminate Bike Lanes. Motorists are far easier to reach... they are controlled by state agencies.
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 12:05 PM
Bike lanes never mean having to pay less attention to traffic...
Well, I certainly agree that bike lanes should NOT mean pay less attention, but I strongly disagree if you're saying they're not interpreted that way by many if not most cyclists. That's exactly why cyclists feel more comfortable in bike lanes. That's why they emphasize the legal aspects so much ("they" have to yield the right of way to me). It's (unfortunately) true that if you're hit in a bike lane, they're probably going to fault the motorist for violating your ROW. This give all too many cyclists a false sense of security, and lulls them into not paying as much attention to traffic as they should.
Of course you expect motorists to always expect cyclists...
I don't. I expect motorists to expect hazards, be they others cars, motorcyclists, opening doors, a chair laying in the road after falling out of the back of a pickup, red lights, a car stopping in a 45 mph lane in order to backup and park parallel (e.g., LJ Village Drive), etc. Whether they do or not is really of little concern to me, except the few in my immediate vicinity whose attention I require in order to avoid collision with them. All I care about is whether each one of those sees me, which I verify.
In other words, instead of looking at it as a big overwhelming problem of requiring everyone to notice bicyclists, I break it down to a very small manageable problem, one moment at a time, while riding. The set of people who actually need to be aware of me at any given moment is very small, and is often zero. Whether they believe I have a right to be there or not, i could care less. What matter is that they see me, period. Maybe they'll honk. Good! That means they saw me... mission accomplished (conspicuity verified). Next! Plus, now that they did see me, even if they honked, they saw a cyclist riding vehicularly. Next time they see one it won't be quite as unusual. If they start seeing it every day, they'll start accepting it as the norm. And until they start seeing it every day (which they won't if we're riding in bike lanes all over the place), I don't care what you put in the law books or in driver ed, they're not going to accept it as the norm. Because, to be fair, it isn't.
genec
06-09-06, 12:20 PM
Whether they believe I have a right to be there or not, i could care less. What matter is that they see me, period. Maybe they'll honk. Good! That means they saw me... mission accomplished (conspicuity verified).
Almost works... problem is that those that do not believe you have rights on the road can pull bone head very unpredictable moves based on their beliefs, and that is where the dangers can come from. It is the unpredictiblity issue...
You know... traffic is predictable, but individual motorists are not...
I agree with you that if I am nothing more than trash on the road and motorists are seeing me and avoiding me, then they have avoided me. Period.
But when motorists go into some strange hyper mode based on seeing a cyclist on the road (a'la the Notion thread) then we have problems beyond the norm.
This is why I want motorists to have a minimal understanding of the fact that I have a right to be there.
rando
06-09-06, 01:02 PM
Head, your "theory" is based on an assumption that may or may not be true. It must be nice to be able to read the minds of every cyclist in the bike lane and know that they are hypnotically lulled into a state of inattention. those people riding on the sidewalk must be almost comatose! I can only hope you use your power for good, not evil!
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 01:13 PM
But when motorists go into some strange hyper mode based on seeing a cyclist on the road (a'la the Notion thread) then we have problems beyond the norm.
Can you give me a specific example or two of what you mean by this? Something that would constitute an unpredictable hazard root caused by the motorist's belief that cyclists don't have a right to be on the road, and assuming the motorist does not have an intent to kill (all bets are off if there is such an intent, which education will not affect anyway). And please compare the likelihood of this occuring to one of us with the likelihood of winning the Lottery.
Head, your "theory" is based on an assumption that may or may not be true. It must be nice to be able to read the minds of every cyclist in the bike lane and know that they are hypnotically lulled into a state of inattention. those people riding on the sidewalk must be almost comatose! I can only hope you use your power for good, not evil!
What theory? What premise? I never said EVERY cyclist in a bike lane is hypnotically lulled into a state of inattention.
genec
06-09-06, 01:31 PM
Can you give me a specific example or two of what you mean by this? Something that would constitute an unpredictable hazard root caused by the motorist's belief that cyclists don't have a right to be on the road, and assuming the motorist does not have an intent to kill (all bets are off if there is such an intent, which education will not affect anyway). And please compare the likelihood of this occuring to one of us with the likelihood of winning the Lottery.
Actually I already gave you an example: in "the Notion... explained" thread. I have also seen other very unpredictable behaviours by motorists in spite of me being very predictible. If any of these had the same odds as winning the lottery, I would be quite rich by now.
The behaviour I am refering to is where motorists do something out of their ordinary behaviour simply because a cyclist is on the road... sudden lane changes without checking, crossing yellow lines without verifying safety, using center straight through lanes to make right turns around right turning cyclists in ROTL, sudden power moves that cause other drivers to avoid a motorist that is passing a cyclist moving at the speed of traffic.
In at least one situation I was told their behaviour was because I was on bicycle in their road. (one doesn't often get the chance to interview motorists performing these behaviours)
Now of course you will cite that this never happens to you.
Then other cyclists will state they have seen the same unpredictable behaviours in motorists and then you will state that those cyclists themselves are not predictable due to lack of proper training.
Yet in all of this you will not admit that motorists can and do exercise unpredictable behaviours due to their thinking that cyclists do not belong on the road. (See The Notion... Explained)
Unpredicatable behaviour of course violates the IDPE concept as you cannot predict those moves.... they are illogical. Hence the problem with motorists not accepting cyclists as legitimate users of the road.
rando
06-09-06, 01:58 PM
HH, you said "Well, I certainly agree that bike lanes should NOT mean pay less attention, but I strongly disagree if you're saying they're not interpreted that way by many if not most cyclists. That's exactly why cyclists feel more comfortable in bike lanes."
so how MANY can you read the minds of? many if not most, is what I'm reading.
the theory: Bike lanes are bad,
the assumption: that many if not most cyclist don't pay attention in the bike lanes.
why don't you just admit that your main thing is getting every cyclist to ride on the road VC commando style and anything that messes with that concept you are against (like bike lanes)
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 02:23 PM
Now of course you will cite that this never happens to you.
Actually, a couple of days ago riding in later than usual on e/b LJVD (6 lanes, 45 mph posted, onstreet parking, no bike lanes, marginally wide OL) I was riding in my usual position pretty far out. I have found that if I ride just outside of the door zone, then there is enough space for motorist to try to squeeze in, and pass too close, so I move further left. Anyway, I observed a city bus approaching from behind (me: 12 mph, him: 50?). I did my slow sign and he immediately changed lanes to pass. The next car approaching was a red Mitsu Eclipse. This guy was not slowing down, but I could tell he saw me because I saw him start to move left when I issued my sign. Before he reached me, and as he moved into the adjacent lane too late and passed me, he laid in on the horn. I shook my head, and noticed the light up ahead (at Regents) was red, so I hit the gas, so to speak. Sure enough, I caught him at the light, and pulled up next to the driver's side window, which was open. I could tell he knew I was there, but he looked straight ahead and ignored me. The conversation went something like this.
Me: Good morning (friendly voice, smiling).
Him: (finally turns his head to acknowledge me). Hey.
Me: How's it going? Nice day huh? (still friendly, smiling)
Him: Ok. Yeah.
Me: So, what you did back there was borderline assault.
Him: hey man, you were in the middle of the frickin' road, dude!
(in retrospect, at this point I wish I had said: "Actually, I was in the middle of the slow lane" or "thanks for honking to let me know you saw me").
Me: I have every right to be there.
Him: You're lucky I didn't run down your dumb *****.
(light turns green, he roars off)
So, in almost 6 years of commuting this route, honking at me has happened now 4 times, although none of them have ever actually endangered me. No big deal. I can tell you this, all the education in the world is not going to convince this guy (or the driver's ed teachers for that matter) that it was safe or reasonable or normal for me to be where I was. The only thing that will change his mind (and the minds of driver's ed teachers) is to see me (and preferably others too) riding there like that regularly, and on similar roads similarly, until it becomes the expected norm in our culture.
Teachers know the power of teaching through demonstration. Often, it's the only effective means. I believe that is the case here, with respect to teaching motorists what is "normal" for cyclists to be doing in the road. No matter how much education you get out there, as long as most cyclists are getting and staying out of the way in bike lanes or keeping to the right, that is going to be the expected norm for cyclist behavior, and anything outside of that is going to be seen as abnormal, unsafe and unreasonable, and all too often treated accordingly.
We cyclists are responsible for establishing the norm in our culture that we have, and it's up to us to change it. Period.
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 02:32 PM
why don't you just admit that your main thing is getting every cyclist to ride on the road VC commando style and anything that messes with that concept you are against (like bike lanes)
I don't know what you mean by "VC commando style". I don't care what everyone does. What I want is enough cyclists out there acting like drivers of vehicles so that it becomes more of an accepted cultural norm. I can live with the current state, but would prefer more acceptance.
I do believe that most cyclists who feel more comfortable in bike lanes feel more comfortable there because they feel (though they may not realize it) that they have less of a responsibility to pay attention. This notion is expressed in countless ways. Talk to anyone about why they like bike lanes, and if you dig down 2 or 3 levels, you'll get there.
And I never said cyclists don't pay attention in bike lanes. I think they pay less attention when in bike lanes, and they shouldn't. If anything, they should pay more attention, because being behind the stripe makes them more likely to be ignored and overlooked.
sbhikes
06-09-06, 02:44 PM
Me: Good morning (friendly voice, smiling).
Him: (finally turns his head to acknowledge me). Hey.
Me: How's it going? Nice day huh? (still friendly, smiling)
Him: Ok. Yeah.
Me: So, what you did back there was borderline assault.
Him: hey man, you were in the middle of the frickin' road, dude!
(in retrospect, at this point I wish I had said: "Actually, I was in the middle of the slow lane" or "thanks for honking to let me know you saw me").
Me: I have every right to be there.
Him: You're lucky I didn't run down your dumb *****.
(light turns green, he roars off)
So, in almost 6 years of commuting this route, honking at me has happened now 4 times, although none of them have ever actually endangered me.
But you just told him that what he did constituted assault. Assault means that he threatened to harm you and had the power to do so. That constitutes endangerment, does it not? Or were you just lying to him?
I can tell you this, all the education in the world is not going to convince this guy (or the driver's ed teachers for that matter) that it was safe or reasonable or normal for me to be where I was. The only thing that will change his mind (and the minds of driver's ed teachers) is to see me (and preferably others too) riding there like that regularly, and on similar roads similarly, until it becomes the expected norm in our culture.
But, HH, you did demonstrate and yet he did not learn. So tell me again how is it supposed to work?
I believe they will not learn until someone in a position of authority tells them. A judge. A cop. An insurance company. Something like that.
genec
06-09-06, 02:47 PM
Me: Good morning (friendly voice, smiling).
Him: (finally turns his head to acknowledge me). Hey.
Me: How's it going? Nice day huh? (still friendly, smiling)
Him: Ok. Yeah.
Me: So, what you did back there was borderline assault.
Him: hey man, you were in the middle of the frickin' road, dude!
(in retrospect, at this point I wish I had said: "Actually, I was in the middle of the slow lane" or "thanks for honking to let me know you saw me").
Me: I have every right to be there.
Him: You're lucky I didn't run down your dumb *****.
(light turns green, he roars off)
Gee, glad you finally had a minor run-in while you were indeed doing all the right things.
However a honk (and late move) is not the same as the real dumb ass moves I am speaking of. Now if he had suddenly accelerated, nearly clipped you, while honking and then cutting off the bus which had to lock up it's brakes... well, then we could compare notes. ;)
Amazing how those "right words" just don't seem to be there when you need them, eh?
I might have asked where he expected me to ride? Of course I probably would have gotten "sidewalk" as an answer. (I don't even think there is a complete sidewalk along there)
As far as training the motorists... While examples are a good way... planting the seed that they should expect us is an even better way... start early, when they are in drivers' ed. and work it from there... with PSAs.
rando
06-09-06, 03:01 PM
HH, this is even more amazing-- you know what people are thinking, even though they themselves do not realize it! Man, you have talent. ;)
you BELIEVE people are paying less attention in bike lanes.
bike lanes are against your agenda because they give people an option you don't believe in, and it hurts your goal of getting bikes to ride the way you believe they should. so you think of every argument you can to discredit them, even when it seems to involve mind reading!
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 03:02 PM
Me: So, what you did back there was borderline assault.
But you just told him that what he did constituted assault.
Not assault, "borderline assault". I'm usually pretty careful about how I choose my words.
But, HH, you did demonstrate and yet he did not learn.
So out of the dozens of drivers I successfully train every day, hundreds per week, thousands per month, and tens of thousands per year, you're going to pick on the one guy who did not learn in his first encounter and declare that it doesn't work?
noisebeam
06-09-06, 04:26 PM
HH's story reminds me of what happened riding home yesterday. Was in a MWL (medium wide lane ;) ) about 3' from curb. One driver passed a bit close, the next with good room, but also with a (polite) honk. I rolled up behind him stopped behind him, but to the left looking right into his side mirror. As expected, he rolled down window and we had this conversation:
him: "you were in the middle of the road"
me: 'so I don't get pushed over to the side"
him: "so what are we supposed to wait for you?"
me: "yeah, and go around me safely"
him: "how about riding on the side of the road?" (here he must have meant gutter)
me "its too dangerous"
him: "then how about riding on the sidewalk?"
me "its even more dangerous; people turn into you..." (as the light turned and we started moving)
Now my tone of voice was whiny and my responses to him were poorly said and I could have explained things much better, but clarity of communication suffers when I am riding hard in 105F temps.
However, interestingly as we were pulling away for the green, he gave me a friendly wave.
I really think that he thought about it a bit (and probably took note that if I was behind him, not squeezing by his right) and came to realize that I did care about my safety, had thought about it and was probably doing the right thing.
Al
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 04:39 PM
HH's story reminds me of what happened riding home yesterday. Was in a MWL (medium wide lane ;) ) about 3' from curb. One driver passed a bit close, the next with good room, but also with a (polite) honk. I rolled up behind him stopped behind him, but to the left looking right into his side mirror. As expected, he rolled down window and we had this conversation:
him: "you were in the middle of the road"
me: 'so I don't get pushed over to the side"
him: "so what are we supposed to wait for you?"
me: "yeah, and go around me safely"
him: "how about riding on the side of the road?" (here he must have meant gutter)
me "its too dangerous"
him: "then how about riding on the sidewalk?"
me "its even more dangerous; people turn into you..." (as the light turned and we started moving)
Now my tone of voice was whiny and my responses to him were poorly said and I could have explained things much better, but clarity of communication suffers when I am riding hard in 105F temps.
However, interestingly as we were pulling away for the green, he gave me a friendly wave.
I really think that he thought about it a bit (and probably took note that if I was behind him, not squeezing by his right) and came to realize that I did care about my safety, had thought about it and was probably doing the right thing.
Al
:beer:
Good one. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that you need to have a conversation with someone in order to give a lesson. Just seeing you ride vehicularly is highly effective for most of them. It would go much easier and faster if there were more of us, that's all. But when we do talk to motorists, I think it's helpful to remember that they really think we're nuts, and being anything other than calm, pleasant, friendly, respectful and matter-of-fact just feeds their misconception. Easier said than done...
noisebeam
06-09-06, 04:51 PM
I think it's helpful to remember that they really think we're nuts, and being anything other than calm, pleasant, friendly, respectful and matter-of-fact just feeds their misconception. Easier said than done...
When he rolled the window down, I expected the worse and my voice was at first defensive sounding, but as he also used a respectful tone, I toned it down responded without resorting to yelling, etc.
This man meant well, he passed with more than sufficient clearance and his honk was almost friendly.
Oh why not, here is the video (I feel a little embarrassed as I sound so whiny and it was hardly worth having a confrontation over)
How closely were you following that car? After smashing my head onto a car's trunk, I get pretty nervous being less than a half-car's length when following.
neat video btw
noisebeam
06-09-06, 05:12 PM
How closely were you following that car? After smashing my head onto a car's trunk, I get pretty nervous being less than a half-car's length when following.
neat video btw
>6' - camera lens makes things look closer than they are.
edit: just looked at vid again, and maybe I got a bit closer than I usually do (after I gave the guy a head start as like usual, but then I caught up perhaps cause he was in my way ;) , but I also watch ahead of the car I am followingt (especially x-walk which will make line of cars stop fast if any right turner stops for peds)
Al
sbhikes
06-09-06, 05:54 PM
So out of the dozens of drivers I successfully train every day, hundreds per week, thousands per month, and tens of thousands per year, you're going to pick on the one guy who did not learn in his first encounter and declare that it doesn't work?
Yeah, but that is what we are saying. There are motorists out there you cannot train. They need an authority figure to do that.
You may be ok with these guys being out on the road. A lot of us are not and would like to see that change and know we are not the people who can effect that change.
Helmet Head
06-09-06, 06:01 PM
Diane, in a culture where it highly unusual to see an assertive cyclist taking the lane on a high speed arterial, do you really believe ONE driver honking at such a cyclist is evidence that there are drivers who cannot be changed by cyclists changing the norms of acceptable cycling behavior?
Are you telling me that you think even if he saw 10 cyclists per day riding like that he wouldn't start getting accustomed to it?
sbhikes
06-09-06, 06:03 PM
HH's story reminds me of what happened riding home yesterday. Was in a MWL (medium wide lane ;) ) about 3' from curb. One driver passed a bit close, the next with good room, but also with a (polite) honk. I rolled up behind him stopped behind him, but to the left looking right into his side mirror. As expected, he rolled down window and we had this conversation:
him: "you were in the middle of the road"
me: 'so I don't get pushed over to the side"
him: "so what are we supposed to wait for you?"
me: "yeah, and go around me safely"
him: "how about riding on the side of the road?" (here he must have meant gutter)
me "its too dangerous"
him: "then how about riding on the sidewalk?"
me "its even more dangerous; people turn into you..." (as the light turned and we started moving)
Now my tone of voice was whiny and my responses to him were poorly said and I could have explained things much better, but clarity of communication suffers when I am riding hard in 105F temps.
However, interestingly as we were pulling away for the green, he gave me a friendly wave.
I really think that he thought about it a bit (and probably took note that if I was behind him, not squeezing by his right) and came to realize that I did care about my safety, had thought about it and was probably doing the right thing.
Al
That is very cool, and it doesn't sound whiney to me.
See that is the thing. Just being there doesn't tell them these things. They cannot read your mind and know why you are out there in the middle. They have to be told. Then they get it.
I had a conversation with my mom who lives at Lake Almanor. She said she'd really like to be able to ride around the lake some time (wow, a long way! It's a huge lake!) but she's afraid of this one narrow bridge at the outflow. I told her that the way to handle that is to take the lane. She said no way. I explained to her all that stuff you explained to that guy, plus told her it's within the law to do that, and she said, "Oh, I see. Yeah that makes sense."
I'm certain she'll never attempt it, but at least now she'll understand should she see anybody else doing that. I have not seen the bridge myself, but I can understand that in some places, even if taking the lane is the safest way to handle it, even if it's within the law and all that, a bike lane would certainly be a requirement before some will even consider it, even knowing all the other options. Because as safer as it may be to do all this VC stuff, you're still putting your delicate flesh deliberately in front of harried, hurried drivers in big giant metal machines who simply do not understand what you are doing and why.
Many of us would rather not teach them with our bodies. We'd rather teach them through the power of the Law or some other large and more powerful institution. That is the safest option in these days of road rage.
noisebeam
06-09-06, 06:20 PM
Many of us would rather not teach them with our bodies. We'd rather teach them through the power of the Law or some other large and more powerful institution. That is the safest option in these days of road rage.
I say both.
I think use of road signs "cyclist take lane" type and share the road signs showing bicyle in front of car (see attached yellow sign), not next to car. (see attached green sign used in AZ)
As it is the terrible share the road sign showing the cyclist in the gutter is used even on roads with NOLs. I have raised this as a concern to transportation commitee and other cyclist advocates.
ps- it was the tone of my voice I thought was whiny, not the words I said, so if you only read the transcription, that may not come across.
Al
marcm
06-10-06, 02:05 AM
When I was younger, I thought that cyclists who took the road did so because they preferred the smooth (suburban) road surface to the bumpy sidewalk. Naturally, I assumed the sidewalk was safer, so I inferred that there must be a reason why some cyclists were willing to take the risk of riding with motor traffic. Now I know better, but I imagine many motorists have the same misconceptions, and would have trouble believing that the sidewalk is usually more dangerous for cyclists than the road, and the side of the road sometimes more dangerous than the center. (To the extent they feel this way, a degree of anger and impatience toward vehicular cyclists is understandable, though not justifiable.)
And until I got used to vehicular/urban cycling (I'm still a novice), it certainly seemed (and intuitively still does seem) safer to ride on the sidewalk, away from fast-moving cars.
As far as educating motorists...I'm 20, so it was only four years ago that I took driver's ed (Sears driving school in the Seattle area). I had a great classroom teacher, and both he and the materials he worked from emphasized cyclists' right to the road and the correct way to pass them (giving them a full lane, like any other vehicle). We were even taught to check our blind spot immediately before every turn (even right turns), specifically for the purpose of checking for cyclists. I believe much of this information was incorporated into the written part of the driver's license test. I don't know how long the curriculum has been this way, or whether it's this good in other counties or states. And of course plenty of people get a driver's license without learning or practicing many of the lessons taught in driver's ed, or they forget much of it over time.
I think much of the disagreement in this thread is petty, and a lot of it can be resolved by acknowledging that most of the opinions/experiences expressed herein, when stripped of hyperbole and absolutism, are not mutually exclusive. Some drivers are friendly, some are rude. Some are open to learning, some are arrogant. Some are patient, some impatient.
Some cyclists ride responsibly (depending on one's definition), some do not.
Some cyclists may become less vigilant when riding in a bike lane, some may be equally or more vigilant. Some drivers may be more apt to notice cyclists when there's a marked bike lane, some may be more apt to overlook them because they're not in the line of traffic.
Beyond this, we can argue over details -- how many do this, how often that happens, how safe this is -- but unless we have statistics (and source them so we're all on the same page), we can only rely on our own experience and speculation, none of which is the final word.
From my own obesrvations as a pedestrian for two years in downtown Rochester, NY, it's the rare cyclist who rides in traffic responsibly. Most forgo helmets, ride slowly, often prefer the sidewalk, sometimes ride against traffic, often don't signal, and are hardly predictable. There may be many cyclists who commute in traffic, and they may be somewhat more responsible, but as a pedestrian (having never driven a car in Rochester) I'm not usually in a place to see them, except very briefly.
From my experience in the last week or two, cycling in downtown Rochester (now that I have a bike), it took me a few days to get used to applying the principles of vehicular cycling (rather than feeling and acting like I don't belong on the road), but now I feel pretty comfortable (not to say unvigilant) riding in traffic, signaling, negotiating lane changes, taking the lane when necessary, avoiding the door zone, and tolerating impatient drivers. A few drivers have honked and passed me dangerously or rudely, others have passed responsibly or stayed behind, most have yielded to my signals and let me in, and some have been unusually accomodating/patient until I waved them by or our paths diverged. Indeed, some drivers respond best to an assertive biker (they're unsure what to do and are happy to accept direction, whether to pass, stay behind, or at least what to expect from you). Other drivers just resent you for being in their way; they're not worth wasting energy on.
Because of the great variety of attitudes and personalities, my feeling is that we as cyclists shouldn't try to explicitly "train" motorists or even worry too much about what they think of us. The best we can do, for everyone's sake, is simply to ride predictably, courteously, and of course safely/defensively. This way we respect drivers, whether or not they've earned our respect, and we invite respect, whether or not they return any. Beyond that, I don't think any on-the-road training or teaching (of motorists by cyclists) is called for, except in the rare but conceivable event where a driver questions us or shows a desire to learn.
(I think the same principles can apply when one is driving a car, especially in a way that's apt to annoy impatient or aggressive drivers, or in way we think others should emulate -- like obeying the speed limit or leaving ample space in front of one's car. The difficulty, whether driving or riding, is maintaining enough composure and self-respect to be unfazed and unswayed by angry/impatient or ignorant motorists who pressure one to speed and/or tailgate, run yellow/red lights, or ride one's bike dangerously close to parked cars and blind driveways.)
TRaffic Jammer
06-10-06, 05:34 AM
well said
Helmet Head
06-10-06, 11:01 AM
marcm - thank you for sharing your thoughtful, insightful, and well-written piece. I have a few comments/questions. (some of my questions are repetitive, so it's probably more efficient to read this whole thing and then decide how to respond, if you wish to at all -- I hope you do! -- rather than doing it point by point). It is clear that your perspective will add much to our discussions.
From my experience in the last week or two, cycling in downtown Rochester (now that I have a bike), it took me a few days to get used to applying the principles of vehicular cycling (rather than feeling and acting like I don't belong on the road), but now I feel pretty comfortable (not to say unvigilant) riding in traffic, signaling, negotiating lane changes, taking the lane when necessary, avoiding the door zone, and tolerating impatient drivers. A few drivers have honked and passed me dangerously or rudely, others have passed responsibly or stayed behind, most have yielded to my signals and let me in, and some have been unusually accomodating/patient until I waved them by or our paths diverged. Indeed, some drivers respond best to an assertive biker (they're unsure what to do and are happy to accept direction, whether to pass, stay behind, or at least what to expect from you). Other drivers just resent you for being in their way; they're not worth wasting energy on.
An excellent start. Give it another month or so, and then consider getting a mirror. Some points about a using mirror:
Give it at least a week to adjust the exact angle and to give your brain time to learn exactly where to point your eye (I'm assuming eyeglass or helmet mount) to be able to quickly see what's going on behind you.
Never move laterally even though it looks clear in your mirror without a physical turn-head-look-back-over-the-shoulder. If you ever rely on the mirror alone, it could quickly become habitual - and that's not a good habit. Always actually looking back is a much better habit.
Mirrors allow you to monitor those behind and know when you might need to communicate with them. Many drivers are perplexed when they encounter a cyclist in the road in front of them, and their minds are put at ease if the cyclist indicates he knows they are there, he knows what he's doing, and he lets them know what he expects out of them. Remember, you're in front, so you have the right of way unless you choose to yield it. One of the bicyclist's most underemphasized tools is the slow/stop arm signal; the mirror allows the cyclist to use this much more effectively. It also allows the cyclist to use subtle lateral adjustment much more effectively.
As far as educating motorists...I'm 20, so it was only four years ago that I took driver's ed (Sears driving school in the Seattle area). I had a great classroom teacher, and both he and the materials he worked from emphasized cyclists' right to the road and the correct way to pass them (giving them a full lane, like any other vehicle). We were even taught to check our blind spot immediately before every turn (even right turns), specifically for the purpose of checking for cyclists. I believe much of this information was incorporated into the written part of the driver's license test. I don't know how long the curriculum has been this way, or whether it's this good in other counties or states. And of course plenty of people get a driver's license without learning or practicing many of the lessons taught in driver's ed, or they forget much of it over time.
Thank you for sharing this information. It's good to hear. Now, given this relatively recent driver traing experience that emphasized cyclist rights properly, please tell us how you think the typical non-cyclist student of this course will react when, while driving, some years later, he encounters a vehicular cyclist who impedes him given that most of the other cyclists he encounters ride like this:
it's the rare cyclist who rides in traffic responsibly. Most forgo helmets, ride slowly, often prefer the sidewalk, sometimes ride against traffic, often don't signal, and are hardly predictable.
In other words, say you have two people, A & B. A has taken a class like the one you took, B has not. Both have plenty of experience with irresponsible cyclists, as well as responsible cyclists but who typically are less assertive than the style you have recently adopted. Do you expect an appreciably different reaction within A than within B when they each encounter a vehicular cyclist who is impeding them? Please take into account that despite your driver ed experience, you were still very uncomfortable riding assertively in traffic, until you learned about the vc approach. (By the way, was that on this forum, a book, a class? Where did you pick up VC?)
Conversely, assuming A & B start encountering more and more vehicular cyclists. Do you expect an appreciably different rate at which each will accept such riding as acceptable and not an example of the cyclist doing something "wrong", given their difference in education about cyclist rights?
Because of the great variety of attitudes and personalities, my feeling is that we as cyclists shouldn't try to explicitly "train" motorists or even worry too much about what they think of us. The best we can do, for everyone's sake, is simply to ride predictably, courteously, and of course safely/defensively.
Agreed. Note that this is consistent with what I wrote in the OP. By "training" I did not mean stopping and talking. I meant demonstrating proper/responsible technique, and exposing as many motorists as possible to that. Many vc's who commute regularly on the same route at the same time, and then ride at a different time one day, note the difference. It's obvious that at the regular commute time, many are accustomed to encountering you, and that at the irregular time, more are not. That's evidence of how much "training" even one vehicular cyclist can achieve, that any cyclist can verify on his own (give it a few months to train those on your regular commute).
think much of the disagreement in this thread is petty, and a lot of it can be resolved by acknowledging that most of the opinions/experiences expressed herein, when stripped of hyperbole and absolutism, are not mutually exclusive. Some drivers are friendly, some are rude. Some are open to learning, some are arrogant. Some are patient, some impatient.
Some cyclists ride responsibly (depending on one's definition), some do not.
Some cyclists may become less vigilant when riding in a bike lane, some may be equally or more vigilant. Some drivers may be more apt to notice cyclists when there's a marked bike lane, some may be more apt to overlook them because they're not in the line of traffic.
Beyond this, we can argue over details -- how many do this, how often that happens, how safe this is -- but unless we have statistics (and source them so we're all on the same page), we can only rely on our own experience and speculation, none of which is the final word.
BUT, if you can persuade me of a truth that I can verify to my own satisfaction in my own experience, then we have common ground on which to build without statistics.
For example, many bike lane proponents tout bike lanes because they say cyclists feel more comfortable in bike lanes. If those of us on both sides of the bike lane debate agree that this is true, it is fair for either side to use it as an accepted premise in an argument. It's like lawyers who "stipulate" assertions in court. If both sides agree, why bother proving it with evidence? Now, if one can build an argument supported solely by premises stipulated by both sides, that should be just as valid and persuasive whether or not any of the premises are supported by data. This is a crucial point, especially when debating in an area characterized by a dearth of data.
Take the "cyclists feel more comfortable in bike lanes" premise. There is virtually no debate on this point. It's fair to ask, then... why? Why do many cyclists feel more comfortable when that stripe is there then when it isn't? Maybe we have consensus on the answer to that question too...
Here's another way to look at it... despite the lack of data, many of us hold strong opinions on many of these questions. Why? It's fair to explore those reasons, and it's missing the point to dismiss these explorations on the basis that we don't have statistics. That's the point. No statistics, yet strong convictions. So what's behind those strong convictions (we know it's not data!)? Speaking for at least myself, that's why we have these discussions.
marcm
06-10-06, 02:00 PM
An excellent start. Give it another month or so, and then consider getting a mirror.
Already did. On my first ride, I felt uncomfortable without one, so I went straight to the bike shop to get one. I'm riding an old road bike with drop handlebars, and I got a handlebar mirror (I've used one before on mountain bikes). The positioning is somewhat less than ideal -- lower than I would like, and depending on how I position my hands, sometimes I'm in the way of it or it's in my way. But it's sufficient for now, until I find a better solution.
Some points about a using mirror:
Give it at least a week to adjust the exact angle and to give your brain time to learn exactly where to point your eye (I'm assuming eyeglass or helmet mount) to be able to quickly see what's going on behind you.
I got used to it right away (maybe because I've used one before). A helmet mirror might take longer for me to get used to.
Never move laterally even though it looks clear in your mirror without a physical turn-head-look-back-over-the-shoulder. If you ever rely on the mirror alone, it could quickly become habitual - and that's not a good habit. Always actually looking back is a much better habit.
Yeah -- driver's ed 101. Check your blind spot. Not sure if a handlebar bike mirror has a blind spot, like a car side mirror, but I would always turn my head before moving over or turning.
Mirrors allow you to monitor those behind and know when you might need to communicate with them. Many drivers are perplexed when they encounter a cyclist in the road in front of them, and their minds are put at ease if the cyclist indicates he knows they are there, he knows what he's doing, and he lets them know what he expects out of them. Remember, you're in front, so you have the right of way unless you choose to yield it. One of the bicyclist's most underemphasized tools is the slow/stop arm signal; the mirror allows the cyclist to use this much more effectively. It also allows the cyclist to use subtle lateral adjustment much more effectively.
I agree: monitoring traffic is the best argument for a mirror. And I use signals wherever I feel I can clear up confusion or clarify my intentions. Most often, it's when I see a need to move left (to avoid curbside obstacles, or to take the lane after letting cars pass), so I check mirror, do a head turn and left hand signal, then move.
I think the mirror can also be a crutch, and to some extent I was using it this way at first because I hadn't mastered the simple head turn. Sure, I could turn my head while riding in a straight line, but I didn't really focus my eyes on anything while my head was turned, so I was often left unsure if there was a car behind, and I would check the mirror to confirm whether or not I had seen anything. I think I have the same bad tendency when driving a car and checking my blind spot.
The correction is to practice the head turn followed by a quick focus (for me, tensing/opening my eyes helps). It takes only slightly longer than the "blind" head turn -- maybe half a second altogether -- and afterward I know what's behind me, rather than seeing a blur and knowing only that there's not a fast-moving car passing me yet. After a little practice, my head turn is much better, and I consequently found myself relying much less on my mirror to find out what's behind me. (I found it sometimes to be more distracting to check my mirror, adjust my head position and steering so I could see the proper area in the mirror, and be extra careful not to leave anything out of the mirror view. Plus a head turn is more efficient than a mirror check followed by a head turn.) So when I use the mirror at all now, I use it when I don't really need to know what's behind me (just curious), or if I need to know but can't afford to turn my head at the moment, or, when cars are passing me, to see when the last one has passed (but of course I then do a head turn before moving over).
Please take into account that despite your driver ed experience, you were still very uncomfortable riding assertively in traffic, until you learned about the vc approach.
Yes, because driver's ed taught motorists how to respect cyclists, not cyclists how to ride assertively in traffic (though some of that was implied). And even after reading lots of biking safety tips online (including VC, and others), I still was very uncomfortable riding assertively in traffic, because it's something you can only really learn by doing. I knew I should take the road, but I felt like I was invisible and the cars would run me off the road. This is only partly -- if at all -- a result of the prevailing "cyclist inferiority phobia" which John Forester supposes, and which may exist; mainly it's because I'm small and vulnerable and the cars are big and fast, and I don't want to be hit. I felt equally uncomfortable -- even more so, actually -- the first time I drove a car in traffic, and especially when I took it on the freeway. After a short while, you develop confidence and realize that you are not invisible and if you know what you're doing, you probably won't get hit.
(By the way, was that on this forum, a book, a class? Where did you pick up VC?)
On various websites, I forget where precisely. JohnForester.com was one of the sites I came across, and I generally agreed with the principles of vehicular cycling when I read them. Then the other day I checked out Effective Cycling from the library. (The Art of Urban Cycling was also high on my list, based on the rave reviews on Amazon.com, but the library didn't have it.)
I agree with what Robert Hurst and others have said, that defensive driving is not emphasized explicitly enough in Forester's book. (Though like HH, I somewhat took defensive driving for granted, and consequently didn't notice its absence from Effective Cycling until pointed out by Robert et al. It's not totally absent, and even the basic principles emphasize yielding at intersections and while changing lanes. And, introducing these princples, he cautions, "you won't yet know how to get yourself out of troubles that other drivers may cause, but you will still do much better than the average American bicyclist." But arguably there's still room for improvement.)
[Assume] A [who was taught cyclists' rights in driver's ed] & B [who wasn't] start encountering more and more vehicular cyclists. Do you expect an appreciably different rate at which each will accept such riding as acceptable and not an example of the cyclist doing something "wrong", given their difference in education about cyclist rights?
I say with any given motorist, you can't predict what they will learn or think about cycling, no matter what they were taught in driver's ed or what sort of cyclists they've seen on the road. But I think cycling-sympathetic driver's ed is a good influence, and responsible cyclists on the road are a good influence. The more good influences, the more likely they'll respect cyclists' right to the road. But nothing's a guarantee, and we should never get hung up on any particular driver or assume that a driver learned anything in particular from encountering us.
Note that this is consistent with what I wrote in the OP. By "training" I did not mean stopping and talking. I meant demonstrating proper/responsible technique, and exposing as many motorists as possible to that.
OK, then maybe "training" is a poor word choice. It sounds demeaning, and I think many participants in this thread have interpreted it that way, even if you didn't intend it. Perhaps "modeling" is more appropriate. "Training" sounds like motorists are not fully human or adult, which in fact they are, much as their actions may often suggest otherwise. And "training" also sounds like you're above them, and they should learn from you. Maybe they should, but maybe they don't want to be trained, and maybe you shouldn't try to train them (though I respect your goal/intention). I think riding responsibly -- modeling responsible technique, if you will -- is all we can do, and anything more is presumptuous (or utopian) and invites criticism or ridicule.
Many vc's who commute regularly on the same route at the same time, and then ride at a different time one day, note the difference. It's obvious that at the regular commute time, many are accustomed to encountering you, and that at the irregular time, more are not. That's evidence of how much "training" even one vehicular cyclist can achieve, that any cyclist can verify on his own (give it a few months to train those on your regular commute).
I don't doubt it. But again the term "training" sounds inappropriate and demeaning, as if motorists need to be "trained" and you're the person to "train" them. Ick. Sure, I wish they would respect me, too, and I hope my responsible cycling has a positive influence on them, but I'm not going to pretend to take the credit for having "trained" them. For all I know, maybe they just got used to me as a predictable nuisance. Or an unpredictable one, whom they consequently give as much space as possible. (And I thought I had "trained" them.) Or maybe they already knew that cyclists have a right to the road, but it took a while for them to get used to the fact that I was a responsible cyclist and not riding dangerously and predictably the way they expected me to, from their other experience with cyclists.
Maybe, though, my cycling was a primary influence on them, as a consequence of which they now have a greater (or new) respect for cyclists' rights. Even so, "training" sounds wrong. Give them credit where credit is due! They could certainly have continued to be impatient and rude and resentful if they wanted to, no matter how predictably and courteously you cycled for them. If they've come around, they deserve at least a fair share of credit and acknowledgement -- and not, in my opinion, the type suggested by dog-training, potty-training, and the like (even if this is not the attitude you intended to convey).
Take the "cyclists feel more comfortable in bike lanes" premise. There is virtually no debate on this point. It's fair to ask, then... why? Why do many cyclists feel more comfortable when that stripe is there then when it isn't?
Fair to ask why: agreed. (For the sake of argument I'll accept as true them premise that "cyclists feel more comfortable in bike lanes".) One reason might be, as you have suggested, that they erroneously feel the bike lane protects them and requires them to be less vigilant. If so, bike lanes may be a dangerous influence, giving novice riders the illusion of security.
But another reason cyclists in a bike lane feel more comfortable might be because they are no longer (or much less) afraid of being hit from behind, because cars don't generally drive in the bike lane -- they have a lane of their own. Such a cyclist might be acutely aware of (and vigilant for) the danger of intersections, turning cars (who cross or move into the bike lane), parked cars, and so on, but still feel more comfortable in a bike lane because their fear (partly instinctual and partly rational) of being hit from behind is reduced by way of the fact that they are no longer riding in the same lane as -- hence in the direct path of -- non-turning motorists who might run them over (a type of accident which, though rare, is understandably scary).
I'm not personally interested in debating this issue right now, especially not in this thread (start a new one if you want to). I think there are decent arguments for and against bike lanes, and to me it's a relatively unimportant issue, especially considering that (from the statistics I've seen -- I forget where but I can fetch them if anyone's interested) bike lanes have not proved to be considerably more dangerous than roadways, and may be somewhat safer -- even if only because they tend to be painted on roadways which are already wider, hence safer, than usual.
Bike paths are another story, but I see no need to get into that here.
Here's another way to look at it... despite the lack of data, many of us hold strong opinions on many of these questions. Why? It's fair to explore those reasons, and it's missing the point to dismiss these explorations on the basis that we don't have statistics.
Granted. But it's also unfair to insert these explorations in threads which concern a different topic, and in that context, it's fair to dismiss these explorations because without statistics, we cannot reach a fast conclusion, and have no choice but to engage in a prolonged discussion which truly does not belong in this thread.
Chris516
06-11-06, 01:12 AM
Do you have any on-the-road experiences training motorists about cyclists having the same right to the road as do other drivers of vehicles? Have you modeled proper vehicular cycling with positive results?
For example, I often have someone approaching from behind, obviously expecting me to pull over, at a point when it's not appropriate (I might be approaching an intersection, or the lane is too narrow and there is another adjacent lane for them to use to pass me, etc.). So I might issue a short slow/stop signal with my left hand, and observe in my rear-view mirror how they instantly slow down, and give me some space. A few seconds later, when the circumstances change (lane widens, or we're past the intersection), I move aside and let them go by, and they smile, nod or wave as they pass, expressing gratitude for our little interaction, and for my taking control of the situation (I think motorists are looking to us for direction much more often than we realize).
Does this happen to anyone else? What are your experiences?
This reminds me of several incidents where, I have encountered drivers that, could care less about cyclists.
In one incident, I was on a main street 'taking the lane' when, a middle-aged mother of two teenage kids(who happen to be in the backseat) who, started honking at me. I pulled over only long enough to, immediately start chasing her after, she passed me, whereupon, she did a sudden u-turn. I promptly caught her because, she had to stop at red light.
I stared at her, while she had her window closed. Then I tapped on her window. She lowered the window and, started berating me while I told her about the state's driving manual and, what it says, not only about respecting cyclists but, that the motorist doesn't get to decide, if the cyclist should move or not.:mad:
In another incident, a man(who was also a cyclist at times) was driving his car and honked at me, insisting I move over. Just before, I pulled over long enough so, I could immediately start chasing him.
I chased him for about 15blks. before, he turned into the parking lot of a grocery store where, I caught him and, told him the same thing I told the woman.:mad:
Helmet Head
06-12-06, 01:42 PM
This reminds me of several incidents where, I have encountered drivers that, could care less about cyclists.
In one incident, I was on a main street 'taking the lane' when, a middle-aged mother of two teenage kids(who happen to be in the backseat) who, started honking at me. I pulled over only long enough to, immediately start chasing her after, she passed me, whereupon, she did a sudden u-turn. I promptly caught her because, she had to stop at red light.
I stared at her, while she had her window closed. Then I tapped on her window. She lowered the window and, started berating me while I told her about the state's driving manual and, what it says, not only about respecting cyclists but, that the motorist doesn't get to decide, if the cyclist should move or not.
In another incident, a man(who was also a cyclist at times) was driving his car and honked at me, insisting I move over. Just before, I pulled over long enough so, I could immediately start chasing him.
I chased him for about 15blks. before, he turned into the parking lot of a grocery store where, I caught him and, told him the same thing I told the woman.
If someone is convinced cyclists don't belong in the road impeding traffic, period, telling them what the law says is probably going to have little to no effect. These people are convinced that it is wrong to be on a bike in traffic holding up cars, period. From their perspective, if the law says otherwise, it's wrong, crazy, or both. To them, it's obvious, common sense, that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of two-ton motor vehicles. And they feel justified in reminding those few cyclists who seem not to realize this rather obvious (to them) fact.
Logic, reason, reciting the law, training or marketing is not how you reach the part of their brain holding these visceral convictions. The only way to reach most of these folks is by demonstration. Of course one encounter with a vehicular cyclist is likely not to do it. But multiple such encounters over a course of time is bound to have an effect. Everyone has a threshold. With some people, seeing just one cyclist riding visible, predictably and legally is all it takes. For others, they're probably going to have to see the majority of cyclists riding this way before they'll be able to accept it as the norm, a reasonable way to ride a bike in traffic. Do your part. Do it right, and encourage other cyclists to do the same. There is a revolution underfoot, and the only question is whether you want to get on at the ground floor, or wait.
There is probably nothing you can do that is more effective on this front than to ride in an integrated vehicular manner on the roads, and cooperate when appropriate. Yes, some of the neanderthals won't get it right away, but give them time. If you do talk to someone, remember their opinion is based on deeply felt honest and well meaning convictions. They really, really believe it is unsafe and/or rude for you to be doing what you're doing. Give them time. Be understanding and respectful. Be calm.