I don't know what's oing on, but if I had true close calls once a week or more, I would quit cycling. I imagine what might be going on is three things:


Some people have a vey liberal definition of "close call." Maybe they think every time a car gets within 5 feet it's a close call.
Some people might have dangerous or agressive cycling styles that really do involve them in a lot of close calls.
Some people like to exaggerate the dangerousness of their activities because it makes them feel more manly, or just because it makes for interesting stories. There's at least one frequent poster here who I suspect falls into this category, and there are probably others too.

I've been thinking the exact same. To me 'dangerous' means I was in a vehicular position on the road and needed to make an evasive manuever to avoid being hit. Otherwise it is perception of dangerous or me making a subtle mistake (such as riding to far right or not communicating my intentions or not anticipating what a driver may do) I do thinks some folks are a bit more sensitive and read a lot more 'danger' into what are really normal driving situations. Rude is not the same as dangerous. Neither is typical driving behavior such as some one turning in front of me requiring me to slow a bit, that happens when driving my car too. Sure it would be great if everyone was perfect and overly courteous to everyone else, but that is overly idealistic.
Al

I've been thinking the exact same. To me 'dangerous' means I was in a vehicular position on the road and needed to make an evasive manuever to avoid being hit. Otherwise it is perception of dangerous or me making a subtle mistake (such as riding to far right or not communicating my intentions or not anticipating what a driver may do) I do thinks some folks are a bit more sensitive and read a lot more 'danger' into what are really normal driving situations. Rude is not the same as dangerous. Neither is typical driving behavior such as some one turning in front of me requiring me to slow a bit, that happens when driving my car too. Sure it would be great if everyone was perfect and overly courteous to everyone else, but that is overly idealistic.
Al


Hmm lets see thus far this week went off the road from centeri of lane do to a moron in a dump truck towing a backhoe on a trailer who tried passing on a hill with double yellow. Even before swerving over to avoid a head on with some little sub compact he was way to close to me. I had to run off in to some guys lawn to avoid being killed exagerating nope. Had i not dodged off the road id have hit from little more than half way back on the traler likly going under the wheels or in to the ramp gates end result the same extended hospital stay or death.

About 3 days ago going up the same road to silvercreek idiot in a small ford ranger passes with less than 3 foot to spare at about 45 or 50 mph. This was right before the bridge and trafic or no trafic i always take the lane before bridges and when aproaching intersections. About 4 to 6 weeks ago idiot in dodge ram 95ish make decided to play block the cyclist. I had no stop sign on woodlawn he had one. He saw me coming waited till i was 10 to 15 feet from the intersection and pulled out. I had to hit my brakes as hard as i could (my break cables are very tight i make sure of that) and my cables slipped some. I started to pull around behind him as there was room to do so he backed up. I asume hoping id go to the front so he could continue his fun and games. To his suprise i put my bike in the dry storm ditch and kicked his door a few times caving it in furhter than it already was while tellign him to get out and laugh some more. He drove off.

About 2 months ago coming back from silver creek just after the bridge so i was still in center of lane doign about 32 to 35 mph lady heading to church decided to pass me with about 30 feet to go to the drive way again hit breaks hard she had to swerve over in to her and my lane to avoid head on colision. I nearly slid in to her ass end of her car just managed to slide by on her right (seen her car at local gas station aperrantly i got her just hard enough with my pedal to put a long scrape on her doors oh well her problem for being stupid).

Those were only the most dangerous of close calls. This isnt including the daily idiots who buzz me semi to close to way to close. At times ive been a few mph above the 35mph speed limit during the close calls.

All of these incidents i mentioned happened on the same road other than the one with the dodge ram.

I could list the ones from last year if youd want like the guy who likes to pass me then slam on his breaks before flooring it. Nothing like a tire smoke bath from a delivery van.

So why dont i quit riding? Because i love riding. I never got my lic after my first try in drivers ed where i failed because i had to drive all 3 days and do to soft cast on my arm could not. They knew i had the cast before i signed up for DE. I was already a avid rider so i said to heck with it and never looked back. Im now 33 (will be 34 aug 26) Ive always been a fairly serious rider ever sence i was around 11 or 12 when i was jumping bmx bikes till now on my old cdale and sooner or later my 73 raleigh granprix (yeh baby steel is real :p)

I refuse to allow the vocal minority of motorist force me to quit riding. Simply put the day i quit is the day i go toe to toe with some motorist and get killed doing so (or die of natural causes) I plan on being like the 72 year old lady who frequents the same roads i ride on and well she does quite well keeping a good pace even up hill on her fat tired modern 3 speed. Shes never gave up riding and nor shall i.......

I've been thinking the exact same. To me 'dangerous' means I was in a vehicular position on the road and needed to make an evasive manuever to avoid being hit. Otherwise it is perception of dangerous or me making a subtle mistake (such as riding to far right or not communicating my intentions or not anticipating what a driver may do) I do thinks some folks are a bit more sensitive and read a lot more 'danger' into what are really normal driving situations. Rude is not the same as dangerous. Neither is typical driving behavior such as some one turning in front of me requiring me to slow a bit, that happens when driving my car too. Sure it would be great if everyone was perfect and overly courteous to everyone else, but that is overly idealistic.
Al

As usual, Al provides a touch of sanity to the discussion. :)

I'm now thinking that 75 % of the variability in this poll is due to differences in understanding of what the term "bad driving" means, and not due to any actual differences in the respondents' experiences.

Most of the descriptions of "dangerous driving" in this thread were nearly unintelligible. Many that I could understand referred to close passes or passes on the double yellow. Sorry, I don't consider these scenarios necessarily to be dangerous, or examples of "bad" driving. HH should have been much more restrictive in his definition of "bad driving," or maybe people should have just taken the time to read his definition before posting. (In case you've forgotten, the definition in the OP referred to incidents that harmed you or nearly harmed you.)

Come on people! It is very unlikely that you would continue cycling if your life was truly threatened on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. Unless you're suicidal, that is. Get a grip!

One more thing--if you really believe cycling is this dangerous, how can you in good conscience advocate it for others? (I mean you in general, not you Al!)

I'm now thinking that 75 % of the variability in this poll is due to differences in understanding of what the term "bad driving" means, and not due to any actual differences in the respondents' experiences.

(In case you've forgotten, the definition in the OP referred to incidents that harmed you or nearly harmed you.)

Come on people! It is very unlikely that you would continue cycling if your life was truly threatened on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. Unless you're suicidal, that is. Get a grip!

One more thing--if you really believe cycling is this dangerous, how can you in good conscience advocate it for others? (I mean you in general, not you Al!)
I know exactly what is bad driving i see it nearly daily.

Ill keep cycling till the day i can no longer physically do so or the day i die.

Because the more people on the roads on bike the higher the driver awareness and the more likly it is that the police will treat road rage inccidents and stupidity in passing tin the same manner they would treat it against another driver.

I love how so many hh included tell me that im wrong or that im bringing it on my self or at the very least imply this is the case. The reason for the strangness in the pole is things like time of day how often a cyclist rides when they ride and the area they ride in.

The results do how ever tend to show that once a week or more incidents are infact very much the norm. To bad some zealots can not accept that and try to put blaim on cyclists differing veiws as to what dangerous driving realy is.

The poll was posted the vtes are in quit acting like al gore and accept the vote.

4 times per month or more is slightly behinnd once pr mopnth to once every few years 46.93 for 4 times a month or more (pluss all the others before it) 53.07 for the total of once a month or longer period. Corse the sample is fairly small only 49 votes).

I think some people give the motorists more of a break than they deserve. That I can see people pass on a narrow, windy road every day on blind curves just because they don't want to be inconvenienced by bicyclists has to mean something. Even if I haven't been in a crash yet, I've witnessed so many near crashes on this road I think about it every morning, that maybe this morning I ought to walk my bike up the horse trail instead. But dammit I just won't give in.

I think some people give the motorists more of a break than they deserve. That I can see people pass on a narrow, windy road every day on blind curves just because they don't want to be inconvenienced by bicyclists has to mean something. Even if I haven't been in a crash yet, I've witnessed so many near crashes on this road I think about it every morning, that maybe this morning I ought to walk my bike up the horse trail instead. But dammit I just won't give in.

I know what you mean. But in my case the evil road in question is the only one that leads to not only my local park 7 mile route but also about have a dozen other choice routes i enjoy. I cant get there other than this road unless i got god close to 3 miles out of my way. Oddly enough one of my routes does take me on this alternate route but its one of my 15 milers .

Its getting to the point where im about to put a big orange sign on a nice sharpened pole sticking from the side of my bike. Big bold letters pass with care sharp object attached!!

I had the cops called on me a few days ago i guess. Apperantly one of the morons who likes to buzz cyclists reported me for riding in a iratic manner.

I explained to the officer that this would not have been me and asked if it was a guy in a blue newer model escort he said yes. I told him the only person operating their vehical in a dangerous and unlawful manner was the driver of the escort who tour past me with about 30 feet to spare to beat me to the stop sign. I didnt post this paticular incident early because it was just the typical buzzing motorist in my area. Least untill he reported me lol.

Bad driving that doesn't harm you or nearly harm you doesn't qualify as bad driving? If that's the case, we're using different terms here. If the victim is the target of bad driving, I'd refer to that as malicious, assault, homicide, attempted homicide, or manslaughter. The quality of the driving doesn't matter here.

Now, in my book, bad driving is indiscriminate. It's just bad, and if someone gets smooshed, it's simply a matter of chance. John Doe just happened to be waiting to cross the street when someone was changing radio stations. Now, that's bad driving. If you're restricting the poll to targeted victims, you're using the wrong terminology.

Bad driving that doesn't harm you or nearly harm you doesn't qualify as bad driving? If that's the case, we're using different terms here. If the victim is the target of bad driving, I'd refer to that as malicious, assault, homicide, attempted homicide, or manslaughter. The quality of the driving doesn't matter here.

Now, in my book, bad driving is indiscriminate. It's just bad, and if someone gets smooshed, it's simply a matter of chance. John Doe just happened to be waiting to cross the street when someone was changing radio stations. Now, that's bad driving. If you're restricting the poll to targeted victims, you're using the wrong terminology.


well i only voted based on my own personal close calls (to close for speed of travel or conditions.type stuff)

I think a good number of drivers don't even know what cyclists want as far as passing clearance. They see us on the side of the road and figure that its normal to pass close. We are there in or to the side of traffic - isn't that just part of cycling in traffic, being treated like any other vehicle? Also consider the many cyclists who for good reason weave in and around dense urban traffic, passing vehicles very closely themselves. Given this isn't it understandable that many drivers don't think the cyclists want special passing consideration.

Al

I think a good number of drivers don't even know what cyclists want as far as passing clearance. They see us on the side of the road and figure that its normal to pass close. We are there in or to the side of traffic - isn't that just part of cycling in traffic, being treated like any other vehicle? Also consider the many cyclists who for good reason weave in and around dense urban traffic, passing vehicles very closely themselves. Given this isn't it understandable that many drivers don't think the cyclists want special passing consideration.

Al

See thats just it though. Lane position is meaningless in my case. Ive been center of lane even a bit left of center yet they still pass with in 2 feet at speed or simply tare by like its a indy race furhter out. As for weavig in and out i dont need to here. Doing so would not save me any time at all. If i lived in new york i might use that style in trafic jams. But ive never been exposed to such a case where i live.

As for me if your in a car and have to pass me closer than normal. Give me a nice short tap on the horn and wait for me to wave you by. So long as you do not pass me at a much higer rate of speed i am completly fine with it.

I know what you mean. ... I cant get there other than this road unless i got god close to 3 miles out of my way. ...

Its getting to the point where im about to put a big orange sign on a nice sharpened pole sticking from the side of my bike. Big bold letters pass with care sharp object attached!!

Me too. It's my only way there. I work at the top of this windy, narrow hill. Soon there will be a bike path and once that's done I will use that instead. Otherwise, I can break my back and get my shoes and pants completely dirty and dusty pushing my bike up the horse trail, which I just refuse to do.

I bumped into a guy doing a big bike tour recently and he had a hiking pole--the metal kind with the sharp, carbide steel tip--pointing out the back of his bike and a small irrigation flag sticking out the side, plus one of those flash-flag things you can buy. He said it's the only way to ensure they pay attention when they go by since they don't care about his life but they do care about their paint jobs.

I really don't know what to think about it. I hate it when they linger back there behind me. I do want them to get on with it and pass me so I can have some peace and quite as I churn up the hill. But I don't want them to risk everybody's life in the process.

There are a couple of opportunities to pass me when you can see far enough to do it with moderate safety. I want them to do it then. But so many choose to do it at the one point when it's suicide--at least once a week, and sometimes several times a day. When they do this, I can only conclude this is rampant bad decision-making, and thus rampant bad driving.

My lane position seems to make no difference. If anything, being closer to the center is worse because that only makes them pull out even further into on-coming traffic when passing me, or makes me a target with an on-coming car on the other side.

Me too. It's my only way there. I work at the top of this windy, narrow hill. Soon there will be a bike path and once that's done I will use that instead. Otherwise, I can break my back and get my shoes and pants completely dirty and dusty pushing my bike up the horse trail, which I just refuse to do.

I bumped into a guy doing a big bike tour recently and he had a hiking pole--the metal kind with the sharp, carbide steel tip--pointing out the back of his bike and a small irrigation flag sticking out the side, plus one of those flash-flag things you can buy. He said it's the only way to ensure they pay attention when they go by since they don't care about his life but they do care about their paint jobs.

I really don't know what to think about it. I hate it when they linger back there behind me. I do want them to get on with it and pass me so I can have some peace and quite as I churn up the hill. But I don't want them to risk everybody's life in the process.

There are a couple of opportunities to pass me when you can see far enough to do it with moderate safety. I want them to do it then. But so many choose to do it at the one point when it's suicide--at least once a week, and sometimes several times a day. When they do this, I can only conclude this is rampant bad decision-making, and thus rampant bad driving.

My lane position seems to make no difference. If anything, being closer to the center is worse because that only makes them pull out even further into on-coming traffic when passing me, or makes me a target with an on-coming car on the other side.


In those cases do like i do give a slow hand signal wait for them to relize what you mean then wave them by whenyou move over. If they fully understand what you mean they will pass close but slow.

Closer than normal passes even with only 5 or 6 inches can be perfectly safe if the driver does so slowly. Any driver that hangs back like that is a driver that will get the idea and pass you close but safe.

Ive ran in to drivers who ive let pass like that in stores and the like many times. All thank me for lettign them by. Had one lady pay for my candy bars and pop heh.

I chose every 2-3 months. If I wasn't such a defensive and anticipating cyclist, I think I would be in more accidents with motorists. I've only had one, and that was about 20 years ago. Just today, somebody decided to get to the yield and make a right turn ahead of me (I was going straight). I had to slow down to avoid the car, and guess what. A second car decided to squeeze in ahead of me. I had to brake to a halt to avoid hitting him.

Bad driving that doesn't harm you or nearly harm you doesn't qualify as bad driving? If that's the case, we're using different terms here. If the victim is the target of bad driving, I'd refer to that as malicious, assault, homicide, attempted homicide, or manslaughter. The quality of the driving doesn't matter here.

Now, in my book, bad driving is indiscriminate. It's just bad, and if someone gets smooshed, it's simply a matter of chance. John Doe just happened to be waiting to cross the street when someone was changing radio stations. Now, that's bad driving. If you're restricting the poll to targeted victims, you're using the wrong terminology.
Bad driving that comes close to harming you is not necessarily an example of someone who targets you. In fact, it's highly unlikely to be.

Roody - I agree it's probably mostly a difference in perception about what constitutes "bad driving", but I think that perception is very significant in terms of one outlook on his own safety in traffic. The more "bad driving" you think is out there, the more dangerous you think it is to be out there, and the less comfortable you will be in traffic. Don't you think?

Bad driving that comes close to harming you is not necessarily an example of someone who targets you. In fact, it's highly unlikely to be.

Roody - I agree it's probably mostly a difference in perception about what constitutes "bad driving", but I think that perception is very significant in terms of one outlook on his own safety in traffic. The more "bad driving" you think is out there, the more dangerous you think it is to be out there, and the less comfortable you will be in traffic. Don't you think?


Cant you just accept the results in your own poll? They dont show what you want so you cherry pick them You made a poll that wasnt loaded with answers that only support your views and when it starts to show a differing view you try to explain the results away and essentialy call the users of this forum inept and not able to tell the diffrence between a dangerous pass or bad driving from good driving.

Face facts its like ive said dozensz of times this sort of thing is area and tim centric. 1 area may be totaly devoid of bad driving or nearly so while another it may be rampant in. Think of it this way driving has various dialect just like some one in the south may say y`all instead of you all drivers in barberton ohio may just tare by a cyclist with out regards to the law or safty while some one in clinton less than 6 miles away will tend to wait till its safe to pass.

You hh need to grow up and acept the facts as they are shown

Nova,

What makes you think I can't accept the results of the poll?
What makes you think they show something I don't want to see?
Because I want to understand what it means?

Nova,

What makes you think I can't accept the results of the poll?
What makes you think they show something I don't want to see?
Because I want to understand what it means?


If you truely wanted to understand what it means you would read my post on the matter ive explained wh a couple times. The reason theirs the oddness to the results is do to area and time centric nature of the bad drivers. One area has horrendous drivers while another has very curtious and patiant drivers. Look at the drivers ed topic. Some places have alot about bikes i beleive utah has a huge section related to bikes. When i took my DE classes there was no mention of bikes that i can recall. Now i get this feelign thats all goign to change in ohio wth the new law going in effect sept 15 of this year. Fact is close proximity to parks and marked bike routes makes a big diffrence in driver attitude. When it comes to parks theres a very big chance that 2 things are happenign 1 the driver is exposed to cyclists on a daily basis and 2 are quite possibly cyclists them selves or grew up riding their own bikes as a kid in the area. Awareness plays a huge part in driver attitude towards cyclists and that dictates if they act in a safe and predicatable manner around us.

Maybe later today ill fire up topo and use the draw tools to show the various roads i ride on and rate how dangerous or moronic drivers are on each road. You want to see somethign truely strange in results you see it.

In my are you can turn a correnr and have a totaly diffrent experiance. Go one way at a intersection have a great riding experiance go the other and have a hiddious one.

Time does make a difference. I left about 20 minutes late the other day and didn't see hardly any traffic at all on my hill, which means I didn't see any bad driving, either.

As for signaling. Signaling only works if you can see it happening in advance (I'm often taken by surprise even with a mirror because of the curves in the road and how quiet some cars can be) and can let go of the handlebars (I wobble quite a bit on my bikes on the uphill due to my heavy load and slow speed, and have trouble letting go, and I am holding the brakes on the downhill just in case. I don't want to panic so I keep very light pressure.)

Come on people! It is very unlikely that you would continue cycling if your life was truly threatened on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. For one thing, it would be impossible to continue because if you are truly threatened on every ride, chances are that after a few rides you'll be dead. :D

But then "harmed" (the word used in the poll) doesn't mean "killed".

Time does make a difference. I left about 20 minutes late the other day and didn't see hardly any traffic at all on my hill, which means I didn't see any bad driving, either.

As for signaling. Signaling only works if you can see it happening in advance (I'm often taken by surprise even with a mirror because of the curves in the road and how quiet some cars can be) and can let go of the handlebars (I wobble quite a bit on my bikes on the uphill due to my heavy load and slow speed, and have trouble letting go, and I am holding the brakes on the downhill just in case. I don't want to panic so I keep very light pressure.)

Yeh im working on a turn signal system for my bike heh. Right now im just useing automobile bulbs while i play with the ciruit. I the end i want to have a small bar on each side of my rear rack and one per fork on front forks . With a rc car battery pack hidden away it should come it under 1/4 of a pound. Right now its more lik 12 pounds haha useing a 12 volt battery froma ups and its not on the bike.

For one thing, it would be impossible to continue because if you are truly threatened on every ride, chances are that after a few rides you'll be dead. :D

But then "harmed" (the word used in the poll) doesn't mean "killed".
Wording of the poll is harmed or nearly harmed. I take this to mean near misses close calls etc.

If your in a paceline and a rider ahead of you does something silly/squirrelly (not the always bad rider, but the occasional mistakes everyone makes) - does that count as 'bad driving' that 'almost harms'?

Cause I see this about 2-3x over every 50mi group ride.

Al

If your in a paceline and a rider ahead of you does something silly/squirrelly (not the always bad rider, but the occasional mistakes everyone makes) - does that count as 'bad driving' that 'almost harms'?

Cause I see this about 2-3x over every 50mi group ride.

Al

Not realy you go in to such things expecting this. Its also not realy driving a bike but riding it.Then theres the fact a bike is in general about 170ish pounds bike and rider while a car is 1 ton pluss. Generaly travling at a higher rate of speed. Close passes even if they missed you by a foot or 2 when at speed tend to cause you to wobble just from the turbulance when is the last time yuo felt turbulance from a bicycle?

Your saying that getting knocked off your bike and falling on the road while riding in a paceline (very often with adjacent motorized traffic) is expected, but getting turbulance from a passing motorized vehicle is dangerous?

Al

It would be interesting if there were any first responders here to provide their input about how often bad driving puts people in harms way.

Even insurance adjusters could probably give some good insight.

Bad driving that comes close to harming you is not necessarily an example of someone who targets you. In fact, it's highly unlikely to be.

Roody - I agree it's probably mostly a difference in perception about what constitutes "bad driving", but I think that perception is very significant in terms of one outlook on his own safety in traffic. The more "bad driving" you think is out there, the more dangerous you think it is to be out there, and the less comfortable you will be in traffic. Don't you think?
I think for a poll to have any validity at all, the respondents must have the same meanings in mind as the pollster. You defined bad driving as driving that "harms or nearly harms" the cyclist. I don't think that moderately close passes fall under this definition, assuming that both vehicles are in reasonably good control of their operators.

I still find it hard to believe that so many cyclists believe that they are nearly harmed on a regular basis, yet continue to ride with no modifications. These respondents are either suicidal, or they don't actually ride much in traffic, or they failed to understand the question asked in the poll.

Your saying that getting knocked off your bike and falling on the road while riding in a paceline (very often with adjacent motorized traffic) is expected, but getting turbulance from a passing motorized vehicle is dangerous?

Al


When i say trubulance from a close pass i mean as in wants to suck you in to the vehical or under its wheels turbulance. And if your riding in a big pace line you damn sure better be aware that theres a good chance of some one up front falling. And again the topic is not bad driving or riding got examples its "bad driving got examples"

I think for a poll to have any validity at all, the respondents must have the same meanings in mind as the pollster. You defined bad driving as driving that "harms or nearly harms" the cyclist. I don't think that moderately close passes fall under this definition, assuming that both vehicles are in reasonably good control of their operators.

I still find it hard to believe that so many cyclists believe that they are nearly harmed on a regular basis, yet continue to ride with no modifications. These respondents are either suicidal, or they don't actually ride much in traffic, or they failed to understand the question asked in the poll.

Not suicidal and not misunderstanding the meaning. As ive said a few times in the past i dont care if im passed close by some one under good control of their car or truck chances are realy good i signaled them to pass me at a slow rate.

its "bad driving got examples"
Interestingly my two closest near accidents in the past 3yrs. were from other cyclists during my commute (both cases blowing a stop sign when I didn't have one). Their bad driving nearly caused me harm and would have resulted in a wreck if I hadn't taken evasive action.
Of course I undersand the risks of riding in a paceline, just as I do when riding solo on roads. In both cases my awareness allows me to take precautions (easier actually when solo on road) to be able to minimize incident. There is a human element to both, so expecting perfection would be very naive.
Al

Interestingly my two closest near accidents in the past 3yrs. were from other cyclists during my commute (both cases blowing a stop sign when I didn't have one). Their bad driving nearly caused me harm and would have resulted in a wreck if I hadn't taken evasive action.
Of course I undersand the risks of riding in a paceline, just as I do when riding solo on roads. In both cases my awareness allows me to take precautions (easier actually when solo on road) to be able to minimize incident. There is a human element to both, so expecting perfection would be very naive.
Al


Sure and they should be treated in the same way regarding laws. Were all vehicals. But fact is if your in a big pace line you should damn well expect accidents and be prepaired to deal with them. When you go from 1 or 2 riders to 10 15 or more things change. Your no longer out on your daily comute to where ever or out for a fun run or trainign ride solo you essentially in race conditions and the risk level goes up. If you crash in a pace line do to some one ahead doing the same and end up tossed in to trafic and hit its obviously not the drivers fault its who ever caused the pile ups fault. I suppose the city could suddenly put in a unsafe grate in the road and cause it all.

Ive been in some fairly large group rides in the past. One had around 30 riders in single file or two abrest depending on the road. The lead rider went down we were all fairly close togather and some how none of the rest of the pack went down. We were goign in the 20 mph speed range at the time. To this day still got no clue how we managed to not have a mass pile up.

As for idiot cyclists they are no diffrent than idiot drivers imo just a little slower and easyer to avoid in most cases.

If you truely wanted to understand what it means you would read my post on the matter ive explained wh a couple times. The reason theirs the oddness to the results is do to area and time centric nature of the bad drivers. One area has horrendous drivers while another has very curtious and patiant drivers. Look at the drivers ed topic. Some places have alot about bikes i beleive utah has a huge section related to bikes. When i took my DE classes there was no mention of bikes that i can recall. Now i get this feelign thats all goign to change in ohio wth the new law going in effect sept 15 of this year. Fact is close proximity to parks and marked bike routes makes a big diffrence in driver attitude. When it comes to parks theres a very big chance that 2 things are happenign 1 the driver is exposed to cyclists on a daily basis and 2 are quite possibly cyclists them selves or grew up riding their own bikes as a kid in the area. Awareness plays a huge part in driver attitude towards cyclists and that dictates if they act in a safe and predicatable manner around us.

Maybe later today ill fire up topo and use the draw tools to show the various roads i ride on and rate how dangerous or moronic drivers are on each road. You want to see somethign truely strange in results you see it.

In my are you can turn a correnr and have a totaly diffrent experiance. Go one way at a intersection have a great riding experiance go the other and have a hiddious one.
Nova,

The results of this poll are interesting in that the answers tend to be at one extreme or the other, rather than collecting around some centerish position. There are several possible explanations of this, only one of which is yours.


Random distribution.
Hurst's explanation: poll doesn't take into account how often cyclists ride. Those that ride more encounter more bad driving more often.
Nova's explanation: poll reflects regional differences
HH's explanation: people perceive driving differently - same driving is perceived by some to be bad or dangerous while not bad or dangerous by others.
Roody's explanation: poll takers perceive "bad driving" definition in poll differently.
Some combination of the above

Why do you think your explanation (3) is more likely to be correct than the others?

Nova,

The results of this poll are interesting in that the answers tend to be at one extreme or the other, rather than collecting around some centerish position. There are several possible explanations of this, only one of which is yours.


Random distribution.
Hurst's explanation: poll doesn't take into account how often cyclists ride. Those that ride more encounter more bad driving more often.
Nova's explanation: poll reflects regional differences
HH's explanation: people perceive driving differently - same driving is perceived by some to be bad or dangerous while not bad or dangerous by others.
Roody's explanation: poll takers perceive "bad driving" definition in poll differently.
Some combination of the above

Why do you think your explanation (3) is more likely to be correct than the others?
A lot of this is due to the poor definition of the poll. The poll asks for bad drivers, which is a subjective definition. The thread title asks for bad driving, which is misleading if you're looking for bad drivers. Even good drivers drive badly sometimes. A hit or near hit is simply a matter of chance. It's a heated topic, not because of the prevelance of hits or near hits, but by the potential consequences, for oneself or for others. And, as such, prone to subjectivity, which can corrupt the results.

Also, the definition does not rule out malice. In fact, if I'm ever a target in a vehicular attack, I'd prefer to see some really bad driving. Last thing I need is a talented driver trying to kill me.

Polls aren't appropriate for proving a point. They're good for providing statistics, but they need to be carefully defined and limited in scope to be useful. You'll need a lot more of this sort of input, and it needs to be sorted objectively, before it means anything to anyone besides yourself.

Don't forget, these are Internet polls. On a forum. You can't expect anything close to the truth.

Nova,

The results of this poll are interesting in that the answers tend to be at one extreme or the other, rather than collecting around some centerish position. There are several possible explanations of this, only one of which is yours.


Random distribution.
Hurst's explanation: poll doesn't take into account how often cyclists ride. Those that ride more encounter more bad driving more often.
Nova's explanation: poll reflects regional differences
HH's explanation: people perceive driving differently - same driving is perceived by some to be bad or dangerous while not bad or dangerous by others.
Roody's explanation: poll takers perceive "bad driving" definition in poll differently.
Some combination of the above

Why do you think your explanation (3) is more likely to be correct than the others?

Actually if you had ead all my posts youd have seen that i had also mentioned time playing a factor both time of day and how often the rider rides.

And it is obvious that perception will play a part.. If rider a thinks driver x is dangerous in the way he passed (4 foot at 50 mph in a moving van) and rider b does not both rider a and rider b are correct and the vehical did pass legally.

How can both riders be right answer is simple. Rider a and bs confort levels differ.

Diffrent riders difrent car. Rider a and b are passed driver y driving at 40 mph but only 2 feet away. By letter of law driver y made a illegal pass rider a does not see that driver y did any thing wrong but rider b feels this was to close and obviously dangerous driving. Again both riders are correct as again they have differing confort levels. But by letter of the law driver y made a ilegal pass.

Don't forget, these are Internet polls. On a forum. You can't expect anything close to the truth.


Sure you can instead of bad driving that harms or nearly harms you leave that out completly.

Based on the law regarding the over taking of a vehical how often have drivers passed to closly (closer than 3 feet) Or cut back over to soon after passing causeing you to emergency break?

These polls will get better and more accurate truthful fresults if the question for the poll is better and non biased as is possible.

HH cant help but bbe biased same as you cant same as i cant.

HH,
Some of us think some driver antics are examples of bad driving, while to you the same antics might not be so bad.

Isn't that quite similar to how you think that drivers pass by you too closely and quickly when you're in the bike lane and some of us don't think that is a problem in the least?

I keep reading about all these allegedly bad drivers out there and how they are causing all these threats and problems for cyclists, but I simply don't encounter them, whether cycling or driving a car.

So, the purpose of this thread is to describe situations that have recently happened to you that you considered involved "bad" driving that harmed, or nearly harmed, you.

PLEASE, do not include examples of where you were not noticed because you were riding in the bike lane or near the edge of the road. You should expect to be overlooked in those situations by most drivers, not just "bad" ones.

Please specify when the incident occured, where you were positioned in the roadway, the street situation (# of lanes, how close to an intersection, etc.), approximate speeds, etc.

I keep reading about all these allegedly bad drivers out there and how they are causing all these threats and problems for cyclists, but I simply don't encounter them, whether cycling or driving a car.

So, the purpose of this thread is to describe situations that have recently happened to you that you considered involved "bad" driving that harmed, or nearly harmed, you.

PLEASE, do not include examples of where you were not noticed because you were not using high-visibility outer clothing in combination with at least one daytime-visible lighting system front & rear. You should expect to be overlooked in those situations by most drivers, not just "bad" ones.

Please specify when the incident occured, what your active and passive lighting consisted of at the time, what hi-vis stuff you were wearing, the street situation (visibility conditions, line-of-sight range and possible obstructions between you and the motorists), approximate speeds, etc.

I think my point is clear, and it's not about visibility, but about the tint of the glasses through which one tends to look at things and interpret them :)

Actually if you had ead all my posts youd have seen that i had also mentioned time playing a factor both time of day and how often the rider rides.

And it is obvious that perception will play a part.. If rider a thinks driver x is dangerous in the way he passed (4 foot at 50 mph in a moving van) and rider b does not both rider a and rider b are correct and the vehical did pass legally.

How can both riders be right answer is simple. Rider a and bs confort levels differ.

Diffrent riders difrent car. Rider a and b are passed driver y driving at 40 mph but only 2 feet away. By letter of law driver y made a illegal pass rider a does not see that driver y did any thing wrong but rider b feels this was to close and obviously dangerous driving. Again both riders are correct as again they have differing confort levels. But by letter of the law driver y made a ilegal pass.
None of this explains why there are two "humps" at the extremes, rather than one "hump".

For example, if it were true that regional differences explained the difference, that alone would not explain the two humps. You'd also have to conclude that most cyclists who responded to the poll ride in one of two very different type of environments: either in one where bad drivers are encountered about once a year, or in one where bad drivers are encountered almost daily. I'm not saying that's not true, but I find it hard to believe that the disparity is so wide.

If I voted based on drivers I encounter while I'm driving a car, I'd have to say several times per week. But in my cycling, I tend to avoid the busy thoroughfares and intersections where bad drivers are exposed, so my cycling-only encounters number just a few times per year.

If I wasn't such a defensive and anticipating cyclist, I think I would be in more accidents with motorists.

+1

The other day I was going along and a contractor pickup pulled ahead of me, then began braking as we approached a 4-way cross street. I was immediately thinking "right hook", so I slowed along with him. He had no turn signal on. I had to brake pretty hard to avoid what I thought was going to be his right-side door turning into me. Instead, he turned left (still with no signal). Was that a close call? I wouldn't count it as one, because it was a fairly routine anticipate-and-react maneuver.

I think my point is clear, and it's not about visibility, but about the tint of the glasses through which one tends to look at things and interpret them :)
Tint of glass, which I don't deny, does not explain why people responding picked answers at one of two extremes.

A lot of this is due to the poor definition of the poll. The poll asks for bad drivers, which is a subjective definition. The thread title asks for bad driving, which is misleading if you're looking for bad drivers. Even good drivers drive badly sometimes. A hit or near hit is simply a matter of chance. It's a heated topic, not because of the prevelance of hits or near hits, but by the potential consequences, for oneself or for others. And, as such, prone to subjectivity, which can corrupt the results.

Also, the definition does not rule out malice. In fact, if I'm ever a target in a vehicular attack, I'd prefer to see some really bad driving. Last thing I need is a talented driver trying to kill me.

Polls aren't appropriate for proving a point. They're good for providing statistics, but they need to be carefully defined and limited in scope to be useful. You'll need a lot more of this sort of input, and it needs to be sorted objectively, before it means anything to anyone besides yourself.
Indeed, those that read the title and simply answered in terms of how often they encounter "bad driving" without paying attention to the poll question or OP might answer significantly differently from those that answered in terms of actual harm (or almost harmed) as was asked.

So this, if true, does explain the two humps.

How about those of us who never actually vote in the polls? Could that explain things?

Not quite. I can cause "bad" drivers to appear and disappear based on how I ride.

The poll question is so vague and subjective as to be completely worthless. The statement above is what this thread is really all about, a misguided figure orchestrating fantasy traffic interactions from his armchair. Macadam imaginations sugarcoating the hard realities of the tarmac.

Sad and tragic. Bring in Sancho Panza, Don Quixotehead is having grand imaginings again.

Three I can remember in the past month. All while driving.
1. My wife and I were on the way to work, four lane, 40MPH road. We watched this driver for about a mile driving just a few inches from the curb. As we slowed to turn left he hit the curb, went up on it, came back down and swerved halfway into our lane. Right where we would have been had we not been turning left.

2. I was on the way home from work and had stopped in the front row of the inner lane of a four lane, 40MPH road. I saw a car coming from behind that wasn't slowing. I checked the cross street and no cars were coming so I ran the light and changed quickly to the outer lane. The other car finally saw the light was red but didn't get stopped until halfway into the intersection. About 20 to 25 feet past where my rear bumper would have been.

3. Tuesday, on my way to a 4th of July ride I follwed a driver who never stayed in the center of the lane for more than a couple of seconds. She would cross the white line on the right only to swerve back over and cross the yellow line on the left. Then repeat over and over.

P.S. The last two were on cell phones. I don't know about the first.

SB

How about those of us who never actually vote in the polls? Could that explain things?
No, that would not explain why the people who did participate in this poll tended to pick answers at one of two extremes.

The poll question is so vague and subjective as to be completely worthless.
If it was so vague and subjective, then we would get a more random distribution of results. Instead, we get mostly answers at one of two extremes.

None of this explains why there are two "humps" at the extremes, rather than one "hump".

You are assuming that this must, ultimately, be a distribution with a single mode. Given the survey, and the broad nature of the population answering the survey, there really isn't any reason to expect that to be the case.

I selected one of the low incident rate answers, but I am mostly a recreational cyclist and I commute only rarely. Many of your respondents appear to be dedicated commuters. As noted by one, nova I think, they will be riding during peak drive times, when drivers are rushed and stressed and probably at their worst.

I think that it is possible for a "calibrated" rider, who has a specified riding style and specified tolerance for near misses, to have the kind of bimodal distribution of responses given the distribution of environments.

Speedo

None of this explains why there are two "humps" at the extremes, rather than one "hump".

For example, if it were true that regional differences explained the difference, that alone would not explain the two humps. You'd also have to conclude that most cyclists who responded to the poll ride in one of two very different type of environments: either in one where bad drivers are encountered about once a year, or in one where bad drivers are encountered almost daily. I'm not saying that's not true, but I find it hard to believe that the disparity is so wide.

Well in a way it does. have a look
at least once per day 7 10.94%
+
5 or more times per week 5 7.81%
at least once a week 14 21.88%
+
4 or more times per month 4 6.25%

If you combind the above in to 2 classes tossing out the first answer as thats a extream case example (valid for the poll though) Think of it this way those who voted for 5 or more times per week may only ride 5 or 6 days out of the week. Posibly family people who spend time at home with young children or doing other family activities. So this potential group only comutes to work probably takign a long route.

The once per week/4 times a month crowd probably live some where where its a fairly good cycling area.

The next group in the humps as you call it are a little more difficult to combind but still possible.

at least once a month 3 4.69%
+
Every 2-3 months 6 9.38%

A couple of times per year 13 20.31%
+
Maybe once a year 4 6.25%

again leave out the extream cases every couple years as this would likly be a park heavy area or just a very cycling aware community city or county(s)

Im sure if i road up and down wooster road or in akron as i did today id be voting multiple times a day

What you should have doen in the poll is have people give a in deapth discription of where they ride when etc.

Riding during rush hour only inccident rate will go up ride during lunch time same thing ride in middle of the night far fewer (long as you avoid rush hours)

Polls will almost always have these multiple humps and or peaks.

Im in the once a day catagory do to where i ride and how many times i ride per day Now this is once per day of riding obviously if its a major thunder storm or im sick etc then i wont be out and about much.