Road rage--scaring people off the roads?

[LittleBigMan]

Could it be that people's experience with road rage while driving is one factor that keeps them from even considering getting on a bike in traffic?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Could it be that people's experience with road rage while driving is one factor that keeps them from even considering getting on a bike in traffic?
That is one possibility. Another is that some people look at the realities of biking in the traffic/weather/cultural environment that they see and live in and decide that other transportation/recreation alternatives are preferable for them. A quite rational and sensible decision making process, despite the hysterical over-the-top hypotheses about phobias, fears, and irresponsibility that emanate from some bicycling advocates.

[closetbiker]

I don't know, I think everyone has a different idea of what scares them.

Sometimes I think Advocacy has more than it's fair share of "worry warts" (for want of a better term) and intermediate cyclists that lack enough experience to realize there's just not that much too get overly concerned about.

I think there is a large amount of experienced cyclists that don't even blink at everyday happenings on the road that some other more vocal riders get up in arms about.

Time magazine is running a story this week about why people worry about the wrong things.

[LittleBigMan]

Could it be that people's experience with road rage while driving is one factor that keeps them from even considering getting on a bike in traffic?

That is one possibility. Another is that some people look at the realities of biking in the traffic/weather/cultural environment that they see and live in and decide that other transportation/recreation alternatives are preferable for them.

Of course, that's another way to look at it. But what I have heard so often from people is their expressed fear of being "run over by a car." Then, when I see people drive on the freeway, I can see why they might feel that way.

My view from a bicycle is that I am treated with much greater care than when I am driving. But I can't seem convince anyone else around me of that. They just look at me as if I had three heads (which isn't true, I had two removed.)

[closetbiker]

Time mentioned that after 9/11 people took to the roads instead of the air. For the next 3 months there were an additional 1,000 deaths per month above regular deaths on the roads.

[Bikepacker67]

I think there is a large amount of experienced cyclists that don't even blink at everyday happenings on the road that some other more vocal riders get up in arms about.


I consider myself an experienced cyclist, and I think I've become more "up in arms" about everyday happenings since hanging out on bikeforums.

When I started seriously riding - 7 years ago (man time flies) - it was in Florida, amongst some of the most clueless motorists the world has to offer, and it didn't seem to bother me nearly as much as it does now that I have a place to vent. :rolleyes:

[rando]

Could it be that people's experience with road rage while driving is one factor that keeps them from even considering getting on a bike in traffic?

That could be, for some. here were the things that concerned me when I was getting ready to decide to bike commute to work in March:

Distance and time-- could I do it?
inconvenience
getting hit by a car

the distance is not that great-- 5+ miles-- but it seemed huge to me in the beginning.
now it is no big deal to me, but had it been longer I might not have tried it.

I found out it is not inconvenient at all, really.

My fear of getting hit by a car or truck has dissipated over time, but I still have the occassional close call and I am very cautious. the times I get into trouble are when I forget that "They don't see you".

plus I really enjoy it and look forward to it every day.

[joejack951]

Could it be that people's experience with road rage while driving is one factor that keeps them from even considering getting on a bike in traffic?

I rode a bike in traffic for many miles before attempting to commute. I put off starting my commute for a few months over concerns about the last road leading up to my workplace which is steep, narrow, and often very busy as it's used as a bypass for some more heavily trafficked roads. I had a few people in the commuting forum tell me not to bother as it sounded sketchy but I had others encourage me to try it and command the lane to protect my space. I eventually got the courage to try it and discovered that most people didn't care and were plenty cautious, and those who did care still went around just with more noise. There are still people at work who ask me about how dangerous it is to ride that road and I can honestly answer that it's not bad at all and happens to be one of the safer parts of commute (the road is so narrow and in such bad shape that people tend to go a little slower). The road rage that my own mind concocted is what held me back from starting to commute sooner.

[bikedaddy]

I find that the average drivers reserve their road rage for the other drivers... not the one or two cyclists they encounter. Just have to look out the few wackos who are very anti-cyclists and be smart and predictable.

[closetbiker]

I consider myself an experienced cyclist, and I think I've become more "up in arms" about everyday happenings since hanging out on bikeforums.

When I started seriously riding - 7 years ago (man time flies) - it was in Florida, amongst some of the most clueless motorists the world has to offer, and it didn't seem to bother me nearly as much as it does now that I have a place to vent. :rolleyes:

Yeah, sometimes people just need to vent. It's mostly hot air.

In my province cyclists are involved in a disporpotionately small slice of traffic collisions; it's simply less likely to be hit by a car on a bike than in a car. Add to that the health benefits of riding into work and complaints about the safety or well being of cyclists goes out the window.

[thenomad]

I have the same fear of the last road to my work. Especially for the ride home. It's bad enough in a car, lots of stop and go traffic and last minute lane changers etc. Plus, the street is 50mph and that seems to be the minumum.

I've seen a cyclist on that road but not sure i want to tackle it.

I was hit by a car when i was younger and we rode everywhere. I have no idea what my average weekly mileage in High school was but it was high. I'm cautious and know tha accidents can happen. I didn't get hurt too bad when I was younger but I "aint any younger" now.

[joejack951]

I have the same fear of the last road to my work. Especially for the ride home. It's bad enough in a car, lots of stop and go traffic and last minute lane changers etc. Plus, the street is 50mph and that seems to be the minumum.

I've seen a cyclist on that road but not sure i want to tackle it.

I was hit by a car when i was younger and we rode everywhere. I have no idea what my average weekly mileage in High school was but it was high. I'm cautious and know tha accidents can happen. I didn't get hurt too bad when I was younger but I "aint any younger" now.

It definitely took riding the road to realize that it was not nearly as bad as I thought it was. There's another nearby road that used to really bother me (even though I had little experience on it). It's a 2 lane each way, 45 mph road with narrow lanes and a high curb on the outside. For a while, I thought it had to be the worst road to ride on in the area, until I actually tried it (I had an eye doctor's appointment and without going miles out of the way, it was the only way to go). Turns out, motorists are very easy going on that road because of all the lights and they can easily see that they need to change lanes to go around me. The worst treatment I've received is a honk here and there (nothing like the road rage I've gotten for taking the lane to avoid a RTOL) and I ride that road quite often now. I'm not saying your road will be a piece of cake but it's probably easier than you imagine. For one, at 20mph, sudden stops aren't really that sudden unlike in a car at 50mph. People do know how to pass a slow moving vehicle when they want to although pointing out the path to take helps (indicate that there is a passing lane, I'm assuming there is on your road). They'll get the hint.

[eubi]

I don't think road rage is all that common, but it's scary so people can use it as an excuse.

[ubernier]

When I started seriously riding - 7 years ago (man time flies) - it was in Florida, amongst some of the most clueless motorists the world has to offer, and it didn't seem to bother me nearly as much as it does now that I have a place to vent. :rolleyes:

Let me just reassure you that they (clueless motorists) haven't moved out.:D I see them every time I am out...on 2 or 4 wheels.

[chipcom]

I think the reasons most folks don't consider cycling as an option for transportation purposes are really pretty basic:

1. It's not convenient
2. It takes physical effort
3. It exposes you to the elements
4. It takes time (especially with our 'spread out' society in the US)
5. Our roadways are perceived as too dangerous to drive on, let alone bike on, due to the speeds, congestion and lack of common courtesy.

So, say we addressed #5 and everyone began driving slower, with the manners and courtesy of saints. 1-4 would still be enough of an excuse for most to not consider cycling as an option. We, the 'serious' cyclists (translation: fanatics) do it because we love it. We are the minority, period, and nothing short of a huge shift in not only our culture, but human nature itself, is gonna change that.

[closetbiker]

I think the reasons most folks don't consider cycling as an option for transportation purposes are really pretty basic:...We, the ***** fanatics) do it because we love it. We are the minority, period, and nothing short of a huge shift in not only our culture, but human nature itself, is gonna change that.

Yeah, I think so but I do also think some might look to another way to get to work if it takes longer in a car than on a bike.

[genec]

I think the reasons most folks don't consider cycling as an option for transportation purposes are really pretty basic:

1. It's not convenient
2. It takes physical effort
3. It exposes you to the elements
4. It takes time (especially with our 'spread out' society in the US)
5. Our roadways are perceived as too dangerous to drive on, let alone bike on, due to the speeds, congestion and lack of common courtesy.

So, say we addressed #5 and everyone began driving slower, with the manners and courtesy of saints. 1-4 would still be enough of an excuse for most to not consider cycling as an option. We, the 'serious' cyclists (translation: fanatics) do it because we love it. We are the minority, period, and nothing short of a huge shift in not only our culture, but human nature itself, is gonna change that.


Man, that is exactly what Forester said.

The flaw in that thinking however is that younger folks could take up cycling and ignore 1-4, if the conditions of 5 were conducive to comfortable cycling. Consider that many college students do bike commute, but often discontinue for a variety of reasons. If they were already doing it, then 1-4 must not have mattered that much, but 5 can even bother experienced cyclists. (just look at the rantings of cyclists here on BF)

Of course #1 does seem to be the biggest excuse to not cycling.

[Bekologist]

YES, road rage scares some people into never bicycling, AND causes even some experienced, high mileage bicyclists to forego riding. Recently there was an article, in Adventure Cyclist? by a well known bike riding guru/author/columnist about how drivers in his town have caused him to GIVE UP BICYCLING. Rivendell printed the article in the riv reader, and i think there was a followup article by this rider in AC recently..... can't recall the guys name though.

The streets, they ARE getting meaner out there.

[chipcom]

Yeah, I think so but I do also think some might look to another way to get to work if it takes longer in a car than on a bike.

Maybe, but it seems like folks are like electrons - always following the path of least resistance. ;)

[chipcom]

Man, that is exactly what Forester said.

The flaw in that thinking however is that younger folks could take up cycling and ignore 1-4, if the conditions of 5 were conducive to comfortable cycling. Consider that many college students do bike commute, but often discontinue for a variety of reasons. If they were already doing it, then 1-4 must not have mattered that much, but 5 can even bother experienced cyclists. (just look at the rantings of cyclists here on BF)

Of course #1 does seem to be the biggest excuse to not cycling.

Screw Forrester...his problem is that, while he makes fairly accurate observations, he then goes and twists them to support his own wacky agenda, which quite frankly I've never been able to figure out. One minute you think he's pro cycling...then the next you think he's against cycling.

I think starting to ride as a kid is a biggie...since I am one of those who started very young and never really stopped. But I also remember what it was like when I first learned to drive...the bike was pretty much relegated to a backup role and the car became my 'baby'. It was the Marine Corps...specifically going overseas where I couldn't have a car, that 'saved' me from abandoning cycling. I think college kids see the bike as a means of transportation, but also as a means to an end, with the ultimate goal to graduate, get a good job and a nice car. I obviously have no data...but I'd bet if we interviewed a large cross-section of college kids who currently ride a bike rather than drive, a very tiny percentage of them would see themselves still riding a bike for transportation 5-10 years down the road. BF college kids are not a good cross section, since they are fanatics like the rest of us - but I bet even there we might find many who consider cycling for transportation as just a temporary condition and consider cycling to be more recreational in their future.

[The Human Car]

There is something about the roads and traffic now days that people perceive as unsafe. There are too many people buying big SUV’s just to feel safer on the road and you just can’t go from thinking like that to “Hey I think I’ll ride my bike on the same roads I drive my SUV on.” The whole trend on emphasizing “safe crashing” from seat belts, air bags and bike helmets has done very little to make the roads any safer and I think some people are starting to realize this and we will hopefully start to see a trend that will place more emphasis on safe driving over safe crashing.

[The Human Car]

I think college kids see the bike as a means of transportation, but also as a means to an end, with the ultimate goal to graduate, get a good job and a nice car.

http://www.trafficlife.com/images/page55.jpg

http://www.trafficlife.com/page26.html

[bkaapcke]

Road rage and incompetent or anti-bike drivers keep me on a paved bike trail. Another reason is that if a driver wants to give me a hard time we are going to have a major confrontation right there. So, It's best I leave the streets alone. bk

[closetbiker]

There is something about the roads and traffic now days that people perceive as unsafe...

Yeah. In that Time magazine article, they have a nice graphic of what kills people each year and what we worry about, is often not what kills us.

Accidents kill only 4% of people dying and motor vehicle accidents make up almost half of that total. Deaths on bicycles are a tiny slice (less than 1%) on par with falling out of bed and choking on food. Far more prevelant are choking on other objects (more people die choking on pens than crashing on bicycles here in Canada), dying in a fire, or falling down stairs.

Much larger in the picture (almost half of all deaths) are from conditions cycling helps prevent, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases.

So people perceive one thing while reality paints a different picture.

I think if other people getting mad at someone is going to prevent someone from doing something that can only help both of them, that's pretty sad.

[noisebeam]

Accidents kill only 4% of people dying and motor vehicle accidents make up almost half of that total.
...
Much larger in the picture (almost half of all deaths) are from conditions cycling helps prevent, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases.
But if you look at rates by age group, motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of death for 5-24 year olds.
All types of accidents are the number one cause of death for 1-44 year olds.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

Al

[closetbiker]

But if you look at rates by age group, motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of death for 5-24 year olds...

...and yet we encourage our youngsters to go out and get a licence and buy a car while we worry about them riding bicycles on the streets with traffic. :(

And, over 44, the leading cause of death is heart disease.

Do you think, out of the 700,000 heart disease deaths, if more of those victims cycled, maybe the 700 bicycle deaths (just 1/10th of 1%) could have been off set by a corresponding (or better) number of heart diseases that could have been prevented?

[The Human Car]

Yeah. In that Time magazine article, they have a nice graphic of what kills people each year and what we worry about, is often not what kills us.


While not as nice as the times magazine article I sorted the stats from the National Safety page to see how things line up. It’s interesting to note that death by riding a bike is near as likely as death by riding a plane.

http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20061207130021353

[genec]

While not as nice as the times magazine article I sorted the stats from the National Safety page to see how things line up. It’s interesting to note that death by riding a bike is near as likely as death by riding a plane.

http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20061207130021353


One think I want to know in these "stats" is are they comparing deaths of a particular kind to the population at large, or only to those that participate in that activity?

For instance... "death by failed parachute jump" is probably a very minimal chance for most Americans... but if you participate in parachute jumping, your chances obviously go way up. So how are they normalizing these "stats?"

[noisebeam]

One think I want to know in these "stats" is are they comparing deaths of a particular kind to the population at large, or only to those that participate in that activity?

For instance... "death by failed parachute jump" is probably a very minimal chance for most Americans... but if you participate in parachute jumping, your chances obviously go way up. So how are they normalizing these "stats?"
Nope: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
"The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors."

Which is why I consider stats like this to be practically useless and misleading.

Al

[Carusoswi]

Time magazine is running a story this week about why people worry about the wrong things.

. . . and it is interesting to see where biking ranks in terms of ones likelihood to be injured while riding.

Caruso

[genec]

Nope: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
"The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors."

Which is why I consider stats like this to be practically useless and misleading.

Al

Exactly. Much like the dreaded "Forester stats."

And yet here we are repeating them as gospel. Sigh.

[Carusoswi]

Man, that is exactly what Forester said.

The flaw in that thinking however is that younger folks could take up cycling and ignore 1-4, if the conditions of 5 were conducive to comfortable cycling. Consider that many college students do bike commute, but often discontinue for a variety of reasons. If they were already doing it, then 1-4 must not have mattered that much, but 5 can even bother experienced cyclists. (just look at the rantings of cyclists here on BF)

Of course #1 does seem to be the biggest excuse to not cycling.

Your post implies assumptions that I don't believe are accurate:

1) you assume that Chipcom's points 1-4 didn't bother the college commuter while they commuted since they commuted, anyway. Maybe they commuted in college because it was the only personal vehicular transportation available to them.

2) you assume those who discontinued commuting via their bike must have done so for reasons other than 1 - 4, and then . . .

3) since the reasons were other than 1 - 4, according to your logic, then, it is logical to assume that there is a good chance that they quit because of Chipcom's point #5.

I think most college commuters ride their bikes around campus because, firstly, campuses are neat places to ride a bike. They are usually scenic, filled with a lot of young people, and, most important of all, a bike can get you around campus and into buildings where you have classes faster, in many cases, than driving a car. Cars have to be parked on streets or in lots often at considerable expense, and, on many campuses, parking a car still leaves the commuter with a considerable walk in order to get to the first destination, then, many considerable walks to get to subsequent destinations. A bike can be very convenient in that sort of situation.

Unfortunately, as college students graduate and move into the "real" world, the bike just gets left behind as a method of commuting. One gets ones first job and one wants to fit in. Driving a car is part of that fitting in. It is probably unfortunate, but, I believe that to be true.

As for other people, I think most don't ride bikes because of the effort (or perceived) effort required.

On one of my longer rides, I stopped in a little town to rest at an outside cafe that is popular with many other cyclists. As we are sitting there, a middle aged motor cyclist joins us and starts a conversation about how, when he was in high school, he and some friends participated in some school activity where they had to ride all of 20 miles. He seemed genuinely surprised when all the cyclists explained that just about everyone at the table had already ridden more than 20 miles that day and that many of us would make better than 60 miles before we got back to our starting point. We weren't making fun of him, at all. Just noting the differences between our perspectives and his.

I think most folks who don't ride regularly would consider 20 miles a great distance to ride on a bike that would make an enormous demand upon them physically. Many have not the patience to endure even a mild level of discomfort (from the saddle or from the effort required to turn the crank) to reach that point where they can actually enjoy riding more than a few miles at a time.

Personally, I doubt that fear of being hit enters into the minds of most people who will not consider commuting on their bikes.

Genec, I make the above comments as my observation. I in no way mean my remarks to be directed at you personally, nor do I mean to be disrespectful of your position - I hope you don't take my remarks in that way.

Caruso

[closetbiker]

Nope: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
"The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors."

Which is why I consider stats like this to be practically useless and misleading.

Al

One can still learn from studies or stats despite inherent flaws. Everything has a leaning or design, you just have to be aware of it.

About a million vs. less than a thousand. Known preventative benefits. A ball park guess here is pretty reasonable.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

There is something about the roads and traffic now days that people perceive as unsafe. There are too many people buying big SUV’s just to feel safer on the road...
Have you ever seen the size of a typical 60's or 70' American car? There is nothing new about "big" vehicles in North America.

[sbhikes]

Most people I have spoken to say that distracted driving is the main reason to avoid cycling. Of those who do try cycling, it is the accumulated effects of distracted drivers and/or a single road-rage incident that causes them to stop.

In my own experience, I have quit bike commuting before when I've had a single, scary close call. Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth it.

(Examples: Guy pulls out of a liquor store parking lot without looking and at high speed nearly running me over. Another example: Guy crosses two-way street thinking he is crossing a one-way street. He looks in only one direction and nearly runs over me and my pet parrot riding with me.)

[genec]

Have you ever seen the size of a typical 60's or 70' American car? There is nothing new about "big" vehicles in North America.

While the 60's or 70's typical American car was long and fairly wide, it was not (with the exception of vans) a large box with broad shoulders. There were fewer cars on the road at that time, and rules such as Right on Red did not exist. Some road speeds were also slower... I know not everywhere... but some surface road speeds have been since increased... remember the "great experiment" in the '70's of 55MPH on interstates... no road speed exceeded that 55MPH. Today in my area, there are 55MPH surface streets all over.

Sure those cars had power, but they also weighed a lot (near as much as today's SUVs) so except for muscle cars... the acceleration was not all that great, coupled with lousy brakes (most of which were drum type).

Also motorists tended to drive with windows down as air conditioning was generally an expensive option... not to mention the lack of multiple speaker sound systems. Rolling down that window put wind in the motorists' face and gave them some awareness of the environment.

This is not to say that it was nirvana out there on the roads... but honestly, in the mid '70s, with the gas crisis, road cycling really was pretty nice... back in those days a "clipped in" cyclist could easily lean on a car at a stop sign and not catch flak... don't even try that today.

It was not just a size issue... the whole environment was different... heck, "Road Rage" had not even been invented yet as a term.

[LittleBigMan]

...my pet parrot riding with me.
I knew a lady who took her African Gray on her bike. She said the bird loved going out for a ride (even though it was in a cage.)

Another friend told me about a parrot named, "Pickles." Pickles lived with another parrot, but was eventually given away to the owner's daughter. One day several years later, the daughter brought Pickles over to visit her dad. As soon as she walked in the door, Pickles made some noises.

The other parrot immediately remarked, "Pickles!" (Keep in mind they had been apart for years.

It's Friday, I just felt like a diversion. :)

[rando]

that's cute!
I saw a guy a few weeks ago riding his bike and he had what looked like 2 gray parrots riding on his shoulders. it was cool to see.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

It was not just a size issue... the whole environment was different... heck, "Road Rage" had not even been invented yet as a term.
True. But don't forget back then driving after drinking or getting caught driving while drunk did not carry the social or legal stigma/penalty (at least for "respectable people") that it does today.

[genec]

True. But don't forget back then driving after drinking or getting caught driving while drunk did not carry the social or legal stigma/penalty (at least for "respectable people") that it does today.

True, but most folks "closed the bars" sometime after dark... and bike lighting really sucked back in those days... so not a whole lot of cyclists rode "after dark."

I know at best I might slink around in my neighborhood after dark, but I avoided headlights when I was doing that.

[Bekologist]

it didn't even carry the same penalties, i remember (vaguely), several occasions as myself and/or friends were let off, completely snockered, with a warning from the constables to 'lay off it for a while before you go driving again'

the days of a stern warning for driving drunk are long gone I hear.


Road rage does get riders off the roads. its a pity.
American autocentricity approaches sociopathic levels. the majority of drivers drivers get whacked with rage over miniscule delays when they get behind the wheel.

[closetbiker]

I think someone who is going to fly into road rage is someone who is going to fly into a rage in other areas too. It's more a matter of personality and how one deals with situations in general than the particular circumstance of traffic. I think it's overstated, it doesn't happen near as much as some would give the impression that it does.

I've read many postings about members venting their spleen at others on the road too. If a cyclist lets loose on a motorist, isn't that road rage too? Do you think a motorist would not drive because of obnoxious cyclists? I don't think so. It's the threat of an attack either by the driver himself or by the motor vehicle he's driving that's scary, but those things are extremely rare. It's mostly just hot air that blows away quickly.

I also think if someone would give up riding because someone else is mad at them, that person probably wouldn't be riding too long anyway because there are more serious challenges to handle on the road than getting an earful from a moron.

[Bekologist]

No, i believe cars and car culture intrinsically lends itself to people raging at the slightest delay. its not soley a matter of personality.

[rando]

I find myself to be more impatient while driving than while cycling.

[genec]

No, i believe cars and car culture intrinsically lends itself to people raging at the slightest delay. its not soley a matter of personality.

I tend to somewhat agree... it is the nature of being in a powerful machine, and then being frustrated by not being able to use that machine to it's fullest and having to creep along in stop and go traffic... plus just the stress of having to concentrate in that traffic... I think that really tends to wind folks up.

Ever notice how much real driving is so unlike the driving one sees on commercials?

Ever notice how easily a cyclist can average about 20MPH on flat roads and keep up with motor traffic in a 35MPH zone?

The cyclist in that situation is getting everything out of it that they put in... the motorist is on the edge of boredom and is frustrated by "yet another traffic light..."

[closetbiker]

No, i believe cars and car culture intrinsically lends itself to people raging at the slightest delay. its not soley a matter of personality.


Would you say, you, or any other cyclst you may know or have heard about, have never raged at a motorist who cut you off or pulled some other Bozo move that threatened your right to be where you are?

[genec]

Would you say, you, or any other cyclst you may know or have heard about, have never raged at a motorist who cut you off or pulled some other Bozo move that threatened your right to be where you are?

I know I have "raged" at some motorists who threatened my right to be where I was... and that is the key phrase... "threatened my right to be there..." where I am a perfectly legal user of the road.

Is the same thing also occuring when motorists rage at cyclist situations... when the motorist rages... at the cyclist being in a perfectly legal situation?

The motorists tend to rage due to their perceived ownership of the road, which they do not in fact own. The cyclists rage to preserve their rights to the road, which the law has granted them.

The motorist rage is offensive, the cyclist rage is defensive.

Motorist verses motorist rage... who knows? I know that when I have gotten angry at another motorist while I was driving, it was because that motorist cut me off... even after I waited in a long queue, or signaled for a lane change only to have a motorist fly up from behind and ignore my signal.

[closetbiker]

The motorist rage is offensive, the cyclist rage is defensive.

Yeah, I don't know. I think it's a personal thing. Isn't something that's offensive to someone, seen as defensive to another? I know a lot of aggressive cyclists that assert their rights so they don't have to get into a defensive situation as I know a few timid drivers that, by honking or yelling something at a cyclist, are doing it because they don't want to get into a situation that could be much worse. I even had a driver once tell me it would be harder on a him if he were to hit a cyclist than for the cyclist who was hit because he would have to live with the "trauma" of hitting the cyclist. I laughed of course. I'd rather not be hit.