Understanding the bicycling environment

[Dchiefransom]

Here is an example of cycling advocates working to have a new road built with a 16' outside lane with no stripe:
On the bottom right corner look for the article titled: I-17 ADOT MEETING REVIEW
http://cazbike.com/webapps/

Note this same article has comments about the City of Phoenix Bikeways Coordinator, similar to what wheel said.

Al

I see that. I also see a major attitude problem with them wanting to discourage cyclists and pedestrians from using frontage roads.

[BIG-E]

Do you think it would be possible to safely share this lane:

It depends on the size of the vehicle.

By riding in the middle of the lane you're forcing ALL vehicles to switch lanes before going around you.

Like it or not, cyclists are in a very small minority. Gotta share the limited resources that the municipality has. It's good to advocate for more transportation routes designed to accomodate bicycles. But riding obnoxiously is just setting a bad example.

[noisebeam]

Did you ever see me not move over for a narrow vehicle that I could share the lane with? The two vehicles that honked at me were SUVs. I do move over if a driver in a narrow vehicle has not already moved over themselves which 90% do, is not intimidating me (tailgaiting excessively close) and there is not a larger vehicle right behind them.

Riding in a center position clearly communicates to most drivers that they can to pass in same lane and most drivers see this well in advance and merge into the inner lane without even needing to slow their speed. It is those drivers who don't get the message and/or don't think ahead, that end up usually tailgaiting me very closely and because of their proximity and now reduced speed relative to inner lane get 'stuck' behind me finding it harder to merge left smoothly - they put all their focus on close following me instead of looking for gaps in innner lane to use to pass. Some drivers reduce their speed to mine, but stay far enough back to have room to accelerate up to speed to facilitate passing in inner lane. Thats the smart way to do it, I merge right to help them with the pass in this case too.

I also experimented riding 2-2.5" from curb on this road and encountred far to many <3' close passes, many even closer.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Riding in a center position clearly communicates to most drivers that they can to pass in same lane and most drivers see this well in advance and merge into the inner lane without even needing to slow their speed. It is those drivers who don't get the message and/or don't think ahead, that end up usually tailgaiting me very closely and because of their proximity and now reduced speed relative to inner lane get 'stuck' behind me finding it harder to merge left smoothly - they put all their focus on close following me instead of looking for gaps in innner lane to use to pass. Some drivers reduce their speed to mine, but stay far enough back to have room to accelerate up to speed to facilitate passing in inner lane. Thats the smart way to do it, I merge right to help them with the pass in this case too.

The dance can go like this: As they get too close you move left. As they drop off, you reward them by moving right. They learn quick.

[Bekologist]

It's the return of the traffic dancing, VC power yield!

[Helmet Head]

So you feel the need to do what everyone else is doing, even if unsafe?

Hardly anyone (no body I've witnessed) rides outside of bike lanes here either. But lots of people get right hooked or passed closed when riding in bike lanes - I know several ~7 who have, both commuters and club riders in the past year. I don't want this to happen to me so I don't do what everyone else does.

And if you think I look silly, then why do I have so many positive interactions with motorists when riding outside the bike lane?

Al

You wouldn't last 2 days riding the way you do here. You wouldn't just look silly but you'd feel silly. There isn't any reason to ride that way and you would figure it out pretty quickly.

I haven't ridden in SB, but I've driven there, and I don't see why it would be any different in this respect than San Diego, where I ride very simlarly to what is depicted in Al's clips (main difference is he maintains a straight course much more than I do - I tend to adjust a few feet left or right for one reason or another probably a few times each minute when in traffic).

I think it's interesting that Diane believes a cyclist wouldn't last 2 days riding in this manner in Santa Barbara. She also has said she would never ride a bike in Atlanta where others do fine every day.

The irony is that riding in this manner is much easier and less stressful and problematic than Diane seems to imagine, and actually facilitates riding safely and peacefully in places like Atlanta. It's really sad that she can't figure this out. And it's tragic that she represents probably far more cyclists than Al and I do.

[genec]

I haven't ridden in SB, but I've driven there, and I don't see why it would be any different in this respect than San Diego...

May I suggest that the problem is "you did not ride there."

I made similar observations of Portland the first time I was there... "it didn't look different." So therefore I assumed it was no different... wrong assumption.

Part of the "whole cycling environment" are the motorists and the attitudes they display... along with the support of the city and the law enforcement officials of that city.

Not one single item can be considered THE key part of an environment, just as our own "natural environment" consists of not only the air we breath, but the water we need and the climate and available food and shelter... it is the combination of all these things that make up an environment.

By the same token, facilities alone do not define the cycling environment. In order to experience the cycling environment, one must cycle. Just as one cannot experience the natural environment while ecapulated in an air conditioned vehicle... you will not feel the warm sun on your face or the cool rain, nor will you hear the noises or smell the flowers.

Try riding a bike in SB or Portland before you pass judgement.

[galen_52657]

The irony is that riding in this manner is much easier and less stressful and problematic than Diane seems to imagine, and actually facilitates riding safely and peacefully in places like Atlanta. It's really sad that she can't figure this out. And it's tragic that she represents probably far more cyclists than Al and I do.

I don't agree that Diane represents many cyclists. To me she only represents the self-marginalizing cyclists deathly afraid of dealing with other road users as an equal who also happen to spend a fair amount of time tapping out tidbits in BikeForums. Not a large group. I know hundreds of cyclists and none are like Diane. Even my novice girlfriend will ride on the open road. She will gripe about the cars if it's a busy time of day but she will still do it.

[Helmet Head]

I don't agree that Diane represents many cyclists. To me she only represents the self-marginalizing cyclists deathly afraid of dealing with other road users as an equal who also happen to spend a fair amount of time tapping out tidbits in BikeForums. Not a large group. I know hundreds of cyclists and none are like Diane. Even my novice girlfriend will ride on the open road. She will gripe about the cars if it's a busy time of day but she will still do it.
And in another thread Diane revealed that she is bugged by motorists who give her "too much" space when they pass her. Bizarre, but not surprising for her.

[Helmet Head]

May I suggest that the problem is "you did not ride there."

I made similar observations of Portland the first time I was there... "it didn't look different." So therefore I assumed it was no different... wrong assumption.

Part of the "whole cycling environment" are the motorists and the attitudes they display... along with the support of the city and the law enforcement officials of that city.

Not one single item can be considered THE key part of an environment, just as our own "natural environment" consists of not only the air we breath, but the water we need and the climate and available food and shelter... it is the combination of all these things that make up an environment.

By the same token, facilities alone do not define the cycling environment. In order to experience the cycling environment, one must cycle. Just as one cannot experience the natural environment while ecapulated in an air conditioned vehicle... you will not feel the warm sun on your face or the cool rain, nor will you hear the noises or smell the flowers.

Try riding a bike in SB or Portland before you pass judgement.
How is saying "I don't see why it would be any different" passing judgement?

I don't see why it would be any different. I don't. That's a fact.

Now, if someone like Diane who has ridden in both SB and SD can explain to me what that difference might be, then I would at least have a reason to believe there might actually be a difference. But for all I know, Diane also feels a cyclist riding "like that" wouldn't "last 2 days" in SD either, which I know is patently absurd.

[Helmet Head]

And while I haven't ridden in Portland or SB, I have ridden all over SD County, in coastal central CA, the northern bay area (including wine country, suburbia, and suburban Santa Rosa, parts of Germany and France, and various small towns all over California during camping trips, and I have yet to discern a signficant difference between how I must behave or how I am treated from one place to another. Yes, in Europe we seemed to get more attention without actually having to ride conspicuously, but that difference, though noticable, was hardly significant in terms of determining how and where we would ride. If anything, in the German suburbs of Munich, vehicular cycling was clearly frowned on on the main arterials (that look much like Al's Phoenix commute) where sidewalk cycling is clearly favored.

But, then, some people talk about how different driving is from one place to another, and I never know what they're talking about either. I've driven all over the U.S. and parts of Europe, and it all seems more or less the same to me.

[noisebeam]

Another video to share!
YouTube 98a55mSPQGA - Why to avoid Bike Lane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a55mSPQGA)

This one is from trying to use a BL as much as possible period.
Approaching the intersection I am out of the BL as it ends and turns into a RTOL.
After it I stay out of it as there is a driveway ahead that from experience I know gets turned into frequently. Sure enough someone does.
Then I make the misjudgement to move into BL to let the vehicles that have built up behind me (not because of me of course, from the intersection and the right turning car) pass. While I am aware of the driveway ahead I take the risk and stay in the BL, but am alert. Sure enough, a driver chooses to turn. I was expecting this and the time I stay in BL as vehicle is slowing, I am signalling left merge and looking back to ensure driver behind RTing vehicle sees me.

This was more of an experiment (partly to capture the video) of using a BL, I normally don't use this bike lane at all any more.
Al

[Helmet Head]

Another video to share!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a55mSPQGA

This one is from trying to use a BL as much as possible period.
Approaching the intersection I am out of the BL as it ends and turns into a RTOL.
After it I stay out of it as there is a driveway ahead that from experience I know gets turned into frequently. Sure enough someone does.
Then I make the misjudgement to move into BL to let the vehicles that have built up behind me (not because of me of course, from the intersection and the right turning car) pass. While I am aware of the driveway ahead I take the risk and stay in the BL, but am alert. Sure enough, a driver chooses to turn. I was expecting this and the time I stay in BL as vehicle is slowing, I am signalling left merge and looking back to ensure driver behind RTing vehicle sees me.

This was more of an experiment (partly to capture the video) of using a BL, I normally don't use this bike lane at all any more.
Al
Yeah, that's pretty good. Some cyclists might ask why didn't you just keep going in the bike lane? The motorist was stopping for you. I think the answer is: once you learn the hazards of passing on the right, you're just uncomfortable doing it, especially when you know they are turning right. It's difficult to know for sure if the motorist is slowing for you, or just for the turn. It's a bad habit to assume that he is slowing for you, even if it's usually true. You only have to assume incorrectly once...

[bobsut]

It's a bad habit to assume that he is slowing for you, even if it's usually true. You only have to assume incorrectly once...That's exactly how the incident developed last month in which my son (13yo) suffered a fractured clavicle. The oncoming driver slowed before making a left turn, and my son assumed the driver was waiting for him to pass. The driver turned, and Matt wasn't able to execute a quick turn; instead he lost control while panic-braking and went over the left handlebar. Matt is now much more conservative with his assumptions in such situations.

See the thread unsolicited advice (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=260907) for my description of a rider who made the pass-on-the-right assumption in the stupidest possible situation, and got lucky anyway.

[noisebeam]

It's a bad habit to assume that he is slowing for you, even if it's usually true.
In this case more than any other it would have been really stupid to assume as I was always behind the driver, even before the main light controlled intersection where I was in line behind them.
If I had proceeded and the driver hooked I would have blamed myself 100%.

That said I do believe the driver saw me (but not enough to bet my health/life on), with much credit to them showing just how cyclist aware they are too look behind them before crossing a bike lane, a unnatural place to look as turning across lanes that may be used for thru travel is not a natural traffic flow.

Al

[genec]

How is saying "I don't see why it would be any different" passing judgement?


Surly you are kidding... you make a declaritive statement and then you don't see how that is "passing judgement." :rolleyes:

But, then, some people talk about how different driving is from one place to another, and I never know what they're talking about either.

Yes, in Europe we seemed to get more attention without actually having to ride conspicuously, but that difference, though noticable, was hardly significant in terms of determining how and where we would ride.

And you have also stated that you ignore motorists that honk at you or yell at you.

Is it possible that you are rather insensitive and very thick skinned? I hate to say it in that manner as it seems disrespective, but some people just are not sensitive to subtle things.

To not see that not "having to ride conspicuously" can make for a more pleasant cycling experience, and thus an "improved cycling environment," is akin to comparing a nice French lunch to MacDonalds. Yes, technically they are both nothing more than food, and they are both eaten basically the same way... :rolleyes:

[galen_52657]

To not see that not "having to ride conspicuously" can make for a more pleasant cycling experience, and thus an "improved cycling environment," is akin to comparing a nice French lunch to MacDonalds. Yes, technically they are both nothing more than food, and they are both eaten basically the same way... :rolleyes:

genec, I like you and you usually make some sense. But where does it say that just because one is riding a bike, the travel experience is going guaranteed to be 'pleasant'? Is driving a car pleasant? sometime yes, sometimes no. Usually, the more traffic, the less pleasant. It's just human nature to fight for space when there is less of it. Is riding a bike in traffic 'pleasant'? I think so. I just retain my space just as I would in my car. One of the motorized MacDonald's crowd behind me gets bent, I say...'let them eat cake!'.

I just don't understand this entitlement attitude.

[Helmet Head]

Surly you are kidding... you make a declaritive statement and then you don't see how that is "passing judgement." :rolleyes:

And you have also stated that you ignore motorists that honk at you or yell at you.

Is it possible that you are rather insensitive and very thick skinned? I hate to say it in that manner as it seems disrespective, but some people just are not sensitive to subtle things.
It's possible that I'm "rather insensitive and very thick skinned". Never-the-less, the fact remains, I don't see why riding in SB would be all that different from riding in SD, and no one has even offered a bit of speculation as to why it would be any different.

You call it a declarative statement. Yet I have not declared that cycling in SB IS no different than cycling in SD. I said I don't see why it would be. Please confirm that you comprehend and appreciate the distinction, and the judgement expressed in the former that is absent in the latter. I hope you pay better attention to traffic than you do to what others post.

To not see that not "having to ride conspicuously" can make for a more pleasant cycling experience, and thus an "improved cycling environment," is akin to comparing a nice French lunch to MacDonalds. Yes, technically they are both nothing more than food, and they are both eaten basically the same way... :rolleyes:
Uh, whether I'm somewhat more likely to be noticed even when riding in an inconspicuous road position does not affect how I ride - I'm still going to opt for the more conspicuous lane position, except when necessary to let faster traffic pass, and it is safe and reasonable to do so. So it has nothing to do with making the cycling experience any more "pleasant", because it's no different.

[Bekologist]

sorry this thread got so derailed, Brian.

I believe that the environment a rider most often rides in colors their riding style and affects their view on the bicycling environment. How could it not?

Who's ridden Mackinac Island? anyone here lucky enough to have grown up there?

[sggoodri]

I don't mean to sound like I doubt you... I am just looking for some clarification. Is the town actually sponsering this? Is this activity coming from city hall or from some advocacy group in town?

What I am wondering is if there is really an official position coming from city hall?

Portland has had exactly that... officials from city hall making speaches etc regarding cycling.

To the best of my knowledge, in San Diego there was a cycing agenda drafted many mayors ago, but full support from city hall these days is pretty sketchy, if it exists at all. A councilman did show up at an advocacy fund raiser last fall, but to be honest, it was a pretty sad event for a city of this size.

I contend that the attitude of the city and the drivers within, has a lot to do with creating a good cycling environment.

Yes, it's the city, as shown by the city web pages:

http://www.townofcary.org/depts/prdept/events/bikeevent.htm

http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/P&Z/bicycleplan/bicycleplanoverview.htm

[sbhikes]

I'd like to see HH go for a bike ride in Mumbai, India. I'd like to see him come back and say "I didn't see any real difference." I would laugh and laugh.

It IS different from place to place. It's different just riding my bike 40 minutes away in Oxnard. Like I said after a ride down there, I can see why people don't like bike lanes, if the bike lanes in Oxnard are any kind of representation of them. They are full of debris, misplaced in proximity to right turn lanes, etc. But the roads and the bike lanes are different down there. It's just a different place.

We don't have roads like that in Santa Barbara. We don't have roads like Al's videos in Santa Barbara. And while we have our own brand of bad drivers here, they sure as heck aren't Chicago or NYC drivers. They might be LA drivers, though.

To actually believe that things are the same everywhere is dismissive of the very reason people travel. It's indicative of an inability to see the differences in the world. An indication of a mind that believes their point of reference is the only point of reference, ethnocentrism.

[wheel]

I noticed a sign in one of your pictures that said it would be a light rail route. Are they going to put light rail down the center of the street and go to one lane in each direction, or will the rail be off the street?
Yea this thread got jacked up. Yes in 2009 in the center right now it is sweet pavement for 6 blocks road closed.
As far as I am certian no BLs travel 3 lanes 2 LRT and 2 travel lanes No jaywalking.
AL I know those problems with BL in the video. I myself ride on the line do some weaving. I use an air horn wal-mart 4 bucks duck tape for emergency. In therory that is your lane and you should pass. I practice this if they have passed me first err seen me. Works really well yet wierd cause trafic is not suppose to stop in the valley. If you go to other enviroments there are hardly any center lanes. So traffic stops on the left turn in the left lane. Not here every Major road has a Left turn lane (center lane).



Thats crazy. I know well connected cycling advocates who live in Phx who would take this up and get this added sidewalk part of the sign taken down.
Al Going East on Jefferson right after the Car crusher place on the right side
Yea I called the bicycle man. Well he is better than the previous person named no one. I got access on the Grand Canal and Central and got signs no access for PED. by asking on 7th st. Now there is also Ped bridge access over the construction. I was like you fenced off my route and I got nailed by a car riding on 7thst give me some access. Magically the fence never seemed to shut after that.

[wheel]

Cary sounds like a nice enviroment to ride in. I miss the color green.
I like WCLs as shown with out parking.

[noisebeam]

It IS different from place to place. It's different just riding my bike 40 minutes away in Oxnard.
I've ridden thru 9 different cities on a given day. Each has their own cycling priorities, level of cycling infrastructure, road conditions, etc.
While it may be nice that one city is better suited for cycling than another, it only works as an example - to do things one needs to live one must often travel to many cities. To go to work I travel thru 3, to go shopping add forth, etc.
That is one reason why standards that are not due to the work of a few local advocates are important to me. Local advocates come and go. Standards form a foundation that can be built on and improve, provide continuity, a reference that can be spread to different localities and nationally.
Right now I can not support the concept of bike lanes partly as there is no standard reference defining how to implement a good bike lane that I can support. Supporting the concept has only resulted in a mish mash of variations with mostly poor results on average.
Al

[sggoodri]

Here is an example of cycling advocates working to have a new road built with a 16' outside lane with no stripe:
On the bottom right corner look for the article titled: I-17 ADOT MEETING REVIEW
http://cazbike.com/webapps/

Note this same article has comments about the City of Phoenix Bikeways Coordinator, similar to what wheel said.

Al

Cyclists in the Cary/RDU area have advocated in favor of unstriped 16' outside lanes

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/wol_width.pdf

as preferable to 14' outside lanes on some busy roads. Cary's collector road standard cross section was originally 32' of asphalt with two 16' lanes. These were my favorite roads for cycling before Cary started striping them off with 4' bike lanes that now collect a lot of gravel and broken glass, and encourage right hooks since they are striped along the curb at intersection approaches.

However, the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division actively discourages 16' lanes as being too wide. They say that lanes wider than 14' encourage motorists to drive with two cars side-by-side in the same lane. I disagree; as far as I have ever seen this doubling up only happens at intersections where this space is beneficial for passing stopped turning traffic, or for turning right when the through traffic is stopped at a stop sign or signal.

As a result, NCDOT won't approve new thoroughfares with 16' wide outside lanes. 14' is the best we can get at this time. NCDOT will approve striped bike lanes on major thoroughfares but doesn't endorse them; they seem to fear that striped bike lanes may encourage novices to ride on busy roads with high volumes of turning traffic and challenging intersections, and consequently get into trouble. Cary hasn't striped any bike lanes on major thoroughfares, partly due to heeding NCDOT's caution about this, and partly due to the fact that since thoroughfares are state maintained roads, Cary won't be sweeping them, and since NCDOT won't sweep them, striped bike lanes will just fill up with debris. However, Cary is considering changing its policy on no striped bike lanes on thoroughfares due to public feedback that the collector roads that are getting striped with bike lanes are less important for passing space improvements than are the throughoughfares. Many members of the public are asking for more combined pavement width than 14' on the thoroughfares, while NCDOT is saying no to >14' lanes but the avid road cyclists are advocating that space not be striped due to the increased problems (debris, incorrect destination positioning by travelers at intersections) they are seeing on the striped facilities compared to unstriped facilities. So far the city has sided with the avid road cyclists since NCDOT is lukewarm about striped bike lanes on thoroughfares, Cary doesn't really want to be stuck having to sweep state roads or see them fill with debris, and the avid road cyclists ride the vast majority of cycling miles that are cycled on the thoroughfares. My position is that I would prefer 16' unstriped lanes on the faster, busier thoroughfares, although I wouldn't actually complain about a striped bike lane installed on a thoroughfare with very few junctions if the bike lane were swept religiously enough to eliminate debris problems and the striping were to end well before intersections.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

...but the avid road cyclists are advocating that space not be striped due to the increased problems (debris, incorrect destination positioning by travelers at intersections) they are seeing on the striped facilities compared to unstriped facilities. So far the city has sided with the avid road cyclists since NCDOT is lukewarm about striped bike lanes on thoroughfares, Cary doesn't really want to be stuck having to sweep state roads or see them fill with debris, and the avid road cyclists ride the vast majority of cycling miles that are cycled on the thoroughfares. My position is...
WHO ARE these "avid road cyclists" and what makes THEM and THEIR advocacy so special? Is it it the large amount of miles they run up on weekend training rides? Your participation? Or what?

[genec]

genec, I like you and you usually make some sense. But where does it say that just because one is riding a bike, the travel experience is going guaranteed to be 'pleasant'? Is driving a car pleasant? sometime yes, sometimes no. Usually, the more traffic, the less pleasant. It's just human nature to fight for space when there is less of it. Is riding a bike in traffic 'pleasant'? I think so. I just retain my space just as I would in my car. One of the motorized MacDonald's crowd behind me gets bent, I say...'let them eat cake!'.

I just don't understand this entitlement attitude.

It is not an entitlement attitude.... it is an attitude that says why does it have to be confrontational... as little or as much as one may currently experience.

With the exception of Helmet Head, many cyclists agreee that one may find different conditions, different situations, different cycling evironments in different places. Some places can be more pleasant than others. This thread is about the cycling environment. Rather than "entitlement," perhaps a better way to look at this is what can be done to make someplace a better cycling place... After all isn't that what advocacy is all about... "bettering" cycling?

We all agree that more cyclists on the road will make motorists more aware of cyclists in general... and how do we get and keep more cyclists on the road? One way is to improve the cycling environment.

Certainly we can agree that the opposite... a negative, confrontational sitution with motorists driving aggressively around a few isolated cyclists is not an ideal situation. Although some might quite enjoy that, just as some folks enjoy jumping out of airplanes...

[bobsut]

...but the avid road cyclists are advocating that space not be striped due to the increased problems (debris, incorrect destination positioning by travelers at intersections) they are seeing on the striped facilities compared to unstriped facilities. So far the city has sided with the avid road cyclists since NCDOT is lukewarm about striped bike lanes on thoroughfares, Cary doesn't really want to be stuck having to sweep state roads or see them fill with debris, and the avid road cyclists ride the vast majority of cycling miles that are cycled on the thoroughfares. My position is...WHO ARE these "avid road cyclists" and what makes THEM and THEIR advocacy so special? Is it it the large amount of miles they run up on weekend training rides? Your participation? Or what?They're apparently local cyclists who use those local roads and notice the problems listed. Please address (if you can) the issues, rather than fishing for a way to impugn the individuals who noted them. Since this thread is about local variations in the cycling environment, does your city have similar problems? How do you address them for cyclists' benefit?

I have seen similar problems (debris, poor surface maintenance, miseducated users) on striped roads in the areas I have cycled extensively - Silicon Valley, Aurora CO, Yucaipa/Redlands CA, and Columbus OH. I have not been active in local advocacy either pro- or anti-facilities, but in my own use of the roadway I just ride in whatever lateral position I need for my purposes. Sometimes this is to the right of the stripe and sometimes this is to the left of the sripe, depending upon speed, destination, parking, traffic, and everything else.

[genec]

It's possible that I'm "rather insensitive and very thick skinned". Never-the-less, the fact remains, I don't see why riding in SB would be all that different from riding in SD, and no one has even offered a bit of speculation as to why it would be any different.


Opps perhaps you are having reading comprehension problems... did you not see my suggestions that "motorists attitude can be the missing bit?" I am going to suggest that co-operating motorists can make the cycling environment "different."

You of course will respond that motorists co-operate with you just fine... (you have said this before) But perhaps we need to examine the source of these statements from you... you, after all ignore "uncooperative" motorists... by your own admission... You may be a bit insensitive to situations that others find less tolerable. This makes you somewhat "suspect" with regard to judgeing the cycling environment for others. And last, one of the environments that has been openly discussed here, Santa Barabra, you freely admit never having actually biked in... you drove through it. That's rather on par with viewing a video of the Sistine Chapel and saying "yeah, there was some art on the ceiling."



You call it a declarative statement. Yet I have not declared that cycling in SB IS no different than cycling in SD. I said I don't see why it would be. Please confirm that you comprehend and appreciate the distinction, and the judgement expressed in the former that is absent in the latter. I hope you pay better attention to traffic than you do to what others post.


I know what the difference is... And speaking of paying attention to what is posted, as I mentioned above, you seem to have missed that I offered a reason why... a reason that one might not "feel" while in a car. I'll state it again, just to make sure you see it this time... The ATTITUDE of the motorists can make a difference. Couple a different attitude with good facilities and well informed police, and the environment in one place can be night and day with another.

When I toured the California coast, I could feel, by the quality of the roads, the facilities, signage, and yes, the cooperation of the motorists, that different areas were better for cycling. Going from Goleta to SB to Oxnard, the cycling environment is vastly different, and for one to not feel and appreciate that difference suggests to me that one is simply not aware of their surroundings.


Uh, whether I'm somewhat more likely to be noticed even when riding in an inconspicuous road position does not affect how I ride - I'm still going to opt for the more conspicuous lane position, except when necessary to let faster traffic pass, and it is safe and reasonable to do so. So it has nothing to do with making the cycling experience any more "pleasant", because it's no different.

I understand that you feel you would not change the way you ride, and that is your choice. But certainly you agree that more cyclists on the road will make more motorists aware of cycling in general, and one way to keep more cyclists on the road is to improve the cycling environment.

[genec]

One clear improvement to the cycling environment can be something as simple as keeping the streets clean. Imagine if a city simply ensured that their budget included regular street cleanings. Imagine cycling about and not finding bike lanes full of debris. Imagine not having to move left in the middle of an otherwise uninteruppted long lane to avoid debris. Imagine not having to negotiate that "extra" leftward move simply to avoid something on the right in a WOL. Imagine fewer flats, simply because a city saw the value to cyclists in keeping roads clean.

Of course the city may justify regular cleanings for a number of reasons besides just cyclists, but they may (if they have a positive attitude about cycling) include cyclists in their reasoning, that also includes keeping a cleaner city for visitor's sake (appearance to visitors).

Little things can make a difference.

Imagine a city that syncronizes traffic lights... so a cyclist doing 17 MPH and motorists doing 34 MPH can maintain their speed and continue smoothly along their way.

Little things can make a difference.

Imagine a city that maintains their streets... and ensures that drains face in a good direction to not be a hazard to cyclists. Imagine a city that ensures that street repairs result in as few longitudinal cracks or steps as possible. (these can grab bicycle wheels and throw cyclists to the ground.)

Little things can make a difference.

Imagine a city that marks or even adds special sensors at traffic lights for cyclists.

All these things can improve the cycling environment and make the difference between one area and another.

[sbhikes]

I've ridden my bike in both San Diego and Santa Barbara. I was in San Diego in the late 80s. I don't know what it's like now. I imagine there are lots more condos now. I lived on Texas Street in North Park, and on Pine Ave. in Carlsbad.

Hillcrest was quite a thrill-ride if you ask me. You just got in there and rode as fast as you could and hoped for the best. Moreno Valley was ok. Not so much traffic. Pacific Beach scared me. Traffic was insane. Downtown was nice to ride in because it was the old-fashioned grid layout of streets and a bicycle had an advantage over cars. Same thing with parts of North Park. None of where I was in San Diego bore much resemblance to Santa Barbara, with the exception that we, too, have a grid layout in the downtown area.

Riding in Santa Barbara is like riding on the Coast Highway through each of those coastal towns in North SD County. The roads we use for transportation as bicyclists in Santa Barbara provide almost the same experience, at least as things were in 1988. The riding conditions in Santa Barbara are a lot like Rancho Santa Fe, too, in some places.

[noisebeam]

One clear improvement to the cycling environment can be something as simple as keeping the streets clean.
...
Imagine a city that syncronizes traffic lights...
Imagine a city that maintains their streets...
and ensures that drains face in a good direction to not be a hazard to cyclists.
Imagine a city that ensures that street repairs result in as few longitudinal cracks or steps as possible.
Imagine a city that marks or even adds special sensors at traffic lights for cyclists.

These differences are noticable when riding in the greater metro area. Some cities (like Tempe) keep their streets cleaner than others (i.e. Mesa) and maintain them better. I've never seen a bad drain here.
All roads are syncronized for 45mph traffic. I know if I maintain 22mph I can hit green lights for miles.

Leaving incorporated areas the streets are much much worse. The county is not interested in improving these streets, pavement can be severely rutted with deep longitudinal cracks.

Sensors for bikes is a mixed bag... I want the sensors in the primary lanes to work for bikes. Bike friendly Tempe puts posts on the curb with a button to press to activate - obviously this results in terrible lane positioning. But with that button in place, the city is off the hook for properly tuning the inductive sensor. Tempe also puts marked inductive sensors in the bike lane in heavily used area with the same resulting problem, what if a cyclist is not using the bike lane at the intersection? This is an implementation problem of course, but it makes the request more challenging: "give us bike sensors, but also make the others work for us"

Al

[Helmet Head]

With the exception of Helmet Head, many cyclists agreee that one may find different conditions, different situations, different cycling evironments in different places. Some places can be more pleasant than others. This thread is about the cycling environment.
Please do not misrepresent my position. Of course I agree "one may find different conditions, different situations, different cycling evironments in different places." My position is simply that those differences do not include a significant enough difference in how I treated to affect how I behave. Please let me know if you comprehend and appreciate the distinction between my position and how you have misrepresented it above. Thanks.

Bobsut's description is essentially a restatement of my position. Perhaps you can understand it easier in his words:

I have seen similar problems (debris, poor surface maintenance, miseducated users) on striped roads in the areas I have cycled extensively - Silicon Valley, Aurora CO, Yucaipa/Redlands CA, and Columbus OH. I have not been active in local advocacy either pro- or anti-facilities, but in my own use of the roadway I just ride in whatever lateral position I need for my purposes. Sometimes this is to the right of the stripe and sometimes this is to the left of the sripe, depending upon speed, destination, parking, traffic, and everything else.

[genec]

Please do not misrepresent my position. Of course I agree "one may find different conditions, different situations, different cycling evironments in different places." My position is simply that those differences do not include a significant difference in how I behave or how I am treated. Please let me know if you comprehend and appreciate the distinction between my position and how you have misrepresented it above. Thanks.

Yes, I comprehend that Helmet Head cannot relax and enjoy a pleasant cycling environment and will chose to ride in the same manner he has forced himself to learn to "protect" himself whether those hazards exist or not. Thus Helmet Head is inflexable.

That is one way to read it.

Another way to read it is that your chosen riding style is so perfect that it does not need adjustment and will serve you anywhere you ride.

Now since all the bicycle riders in the world are not Helmet Head, can you comprehend that a positive cycling environment can lead to more cyclists on the road, which (and you have acknowledged this in the past) will lead to more motorists accepting those cyclists as a normal part of traffic.

Of course we understand that an improved cycling environment will not affect you personally as your riding style renders you immune to any changes either positive or negative in the cycling environment... be those changes either singing birds or miles of broken glass... they will not effect the Mighty Helmet Head and his superior riding method. :rolleyes:

[sggoodri]

WHO ARE these "avid road cyclists" and what makes THEM and THEIR advocacy so special? Is it it the large amount of miles they run up on weekend training rides? Your participation? Or what?

You'll have to ask the transportation planning consultants who conducted the public surveys, and classified the cyclists when tracking where and how far they rode. The consultants for the city transportation plan tell us that over 80% of the cycling miles cycled on area roads were cyclists who self-identified themselves as "avid" cyclists. They did not report commuting versus recreational mileage breakdowns.

Surveys of US census data and surveys of bike commuters indicate that low-mileage bike commuters may outnumber high-mileage self-identified "avid cyclist" bike commuters, but the latter group travels the majority of miles. I pass no judgement on one group over the other, but I do note that the high-mileage "avid" commuting cyclists ride almost exclusively on the roadway section of thoroughfares while many of the other cyclists ride almost exclusively on the sidewalks along thoroughfares. Perhaps bike lane striping would get them off of the sidewalk and onto the the roadway. Perhaps wider outside lanes would do the same. In any event, when we have conducted surveys of our local road bike club members, the vast majority state that they prefer that the pavement space on thoroughfares not be striped with separate bike lanes.

[Helmet Head]

You of course will respond that motorists co-operate with you just fine... (you have said this before) But perhaps we need to examine the source of these statements from you... you, after all ignore "uncooperative" motorists... by your own admission... You may be a bit insensitive to situations that others find less tolerable. This makes you somewhat "suspect" with regard to judgeing the cycling environment for others. And last, one of the environments that has been openly discussed here, Santa Barabra, you freely admit never having actually biked in... you drove through it. That's rather on par with viewing a video of the Sistine Chapel and saying "yeah, there was some art on the ceiling."


I know what the difference is... And speaking of paying attention to what is posted, as I mentioned above, you seem to have missed that I offered a reason why... a reason that one might not "feel" while in a car. I'll state it again, just to make sure you see it this time... The ATTITUDE of the motorists can make a difference. Couple a different attitude with good facilities and well informed police, and the environment in one place can be night and day with another.
Yes, Gene, the "ATTITUDE" of the motorists can make a difference. For example, in an excellent "cycling environment" when I need someone to yield to me it will almost always, if not always, be the first car. In a much lousier environment, it would be closer to 1 out of 3 than every drivers. That's a HUGE difference in attitude (a drop from about 1 out of 1 to 1 out of 3), but a barely perceptible difference in how I'm treated. So I have to wait for the 3rd or 4th guy to yield to me instead of the first guy... big deal. :rolleyes:

When I toured the California coast, I could feel, by the quality of the roads, the facilities, signage, and yes, the cooperation of the motorists, that different areas were better for cycling. Going from Goleta to SB to Oxnard, the cycling environment is vastly different, and for one to not feel and appreciate that difference suggests to me that one is simply not aware of their surroundings.
Or they are the cycling equivalent of the princess and the pea.

Congratulations. You are hereby coronated Princess Gene. ;)

I understand that you feel you would not change the way you ride, and that is your choice. But certainly you agree that more cyclists on the road will make more motorists aware of cycling in general, and one way to keep more cyclists on the road is to improve the cycling environment.
If people in some context are hypersensitive to something, like peas under mattresses, or hurried motorists not yielding as readily as one may prefer, one way to respond is to coddle them and try to attend to their hypersensitivities. Another is to suggest that they get real. Call me thick-skinned and insensitive if you wish, but in general, I think society is better off when we go with the latter.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, I comprehend that Helmet Head cannot relax and enjoy a pleasant cycling environment and will chose to ride in the same manner he has forced himself to learn to "protect" himself whether those hazards exist or not. Thus Helmet Head is inflexable.

That is one way to read it.

Another way to read it is that your chosen riding style is so perfect that it does not need adjustment and will serve you anywhere you ride.
You're missing the point. Either you're riding in traffic, or you're not. When you're riding in traffic, you need to have your wits about you (to use Bek's terminology). Whether you can do that while relaxed (I can) is another matter. But the need for vigilance is the same regardless of your perception concerning the attitude of the motorists around you. And to say or even imply anything other than that, whether in posts here, or through the supporting of painting of "bike lane" stripes on the road, is paying a disservice to all cyclists that you reach.

[genec]

Or they are the cycling equivalent of the princess and the pea.

Congratulations. You are hereby coronated Princess Gene. ;)



So are you going to extend the same "courtesy" to Al and Brian too, as they can see and perceive differences in the cycling environment too.



If people in some context are hypersensitive to something, like peas under mattresses, or hurried motorists not yielding as readily as one may prefer, one way to respond is to coddle them and try to attend to their hypersensitivities. Another is to suggest that they get real. Call me thick-skinned and insensitive if you wish, but in general, I think society is better off when we go with the latter.

Personally I think society is better off when we foster a environment of trust and cooperation... I would hardly call that coddling. You on the other hand prefer to ignore and take a stand as "the alpha male."

[genec]

You're missing the point. Either you're riding in traffic, or you're not. When you're riding in traffic, you need to have your wits about you (to use Bek's terminology). Whether you can do that while relaxed (I can) is another matter. But the need for vigilance is the same regardless of your perception concerning the attitude of the motorists around you. And to say or even imply anything other than that, whether in posts here, or through the supporting of painting of "bike lane" stripes on the road, is paying a disservice to all cyclists that you reach.


No sir you are missing the point. Vigilance is a requirement when riding in traffic, quite true, as is cooperation. But with greater cooperation, there may be greater satisfaction in cycling, which can encourage others to cycle, which puts more cyclists in public view, which further increases the acceptance of cyclists... an ever increasing positive spiral.

BTW while I did mention bike lanes in my post about things that can make a difference, I did not specifically mention that bike lanes themselves can make a difference. Just like one of those subtle things that you expect others to pick up on in your posts.

Frankly, an area that fosters cooperation between motorists and cyclists doesn't need bike lanes at all. You want to remove bike lanes... then teach all the users of the road how to best share that road. Until then... perhaps "some" need "training aids."

[Helmet Head]

So are you going to extend the same "courtesy" to Al and Brian too, as they can see and perceive differences in the cycling environment too.

By your repeated misrepresentation of my position, I would extend the same "courtesy" to myself, because again, I too "can see and perceive differences in the cycling environment." Why do you choose to avoid stating my position in a manner that does not misrepresent it?

I repeat:


Please do not misrepresent my position. Of course I agree "one may find different conditions, different situations, different cycling evironments in different places." My position is simply that those differences do not include a significant enough difference in how I am treated to affect how I behave. Please let me know if you comprehend and appreciate the distinction between my position and how you have misrepresented it above. Thanks.

What (particularly the bold) in that do you not understand?


Personally I think society is better off when we foster a environment of trust and cooperation... I would hardly call that coddling. You on the other hand prefer to ignore and take a stand as "the alpha male."
This is hilarious. I wouldn't call fostering an "environment of trust and cooperation" coddling either. I would call it reality as it exists today. It is only because of the "environment of trust and cooperation" that we already have in traffic that I dare "take a stand as 'the alpha male'" while operating a 20 lbs human powered device among 4,000 lbs motorized vehicles.

What I'm trying to foster is the recognition within cyclists like you that we already have an environment of trust and cooperation, rather than wasting time and resources trying to foster an environment that already exists. Cyclists seeking "greater cooperation" in traffic is as pointlessly redundant as building a sprinkler system in swamp land, seeking shade in a redwood grove, or dragging an ice box to the top of Mt. Everest.

Are there exceptions? Of course, there is the occasional jerk who honks at us, or expresses his wrong-headed but understandable beliefs that we don't belong on the road in some other manner. But if such rare exceptions are a true impediment to your recognizing the environment of trust and cooperation that we have, then there is no hope, for you are never going to be able to get 100% compliance from all motorists all the time. And if that's the case, then your coronation remains justified.

[Helmet Head]

No sir you are missing the point. Vigilance is a requirement when riding in traffic, quite true, as is cooperation. But with greater cooperation, there may be greater satisfaction in cycling, which can encourage others to cycle, which puts more cyclists in public view, which further increases the acceptance of cyclists... an ever increasing positive spiral.

BTW while I did mention bike lanes in my post about things that can make a difference, I did not specifically mention that bike lanes themselves can make a difference. Just like one of those subtle things that you expect others to pick up on in your posts.

Frankly, an area that fosters cooperation between motorists and cyclists doesn't need bike lanes at all. You want to remove bike lanes... then teach all the users of the road how to best share that road. Until then... perhaps "some" need "training aids."
What is "greater cooperation"? How much cooperation is required? Do you require every single driver to yield to you immediately any time you wish them too without any effort on your part to communicate this desire? Heck, we already have that utopian situation already much of the time. I've got drivers yielding to me before I even need them to do it much more often than when I'm unable to get anyone to yield to me (which hasn't happened in years).

You want greater cooperation? Easy to say, but have you actually thought about what that means? What does it mean? Please don't dodge this. Where and when do you get insufficient cooperation to warrant calling for "greater" cooperation?

BTW, I only mentioned bike lanes as an example of a popular "solution" to "improving" the cycling environment (not necessarily by you - though you did mention them so it was certainly fair game).

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You'll have to ask the transportation planning consultants who conducted the public surveys, and classified the cyclists when tracking where and how far they rode. The consultants for the city transportation plan tell us that over 80% of the cycling miles cycled on area roads were cyclists who self-identified themselves as "avid" cyclists. They did not report commuting versus recreational mileage breakdowns.

Surveys of US census data and surveys of bike commuters indicate that low-mileage bike commuters may outnumber high-mileage self-identified "avid cyclist" bike commuters, but the latter group travels the majority of miles.
I can think of two reasons why the "transportation" consultants were not interested in reporting a breakdown between commuting versus recreational mileage. Sloppiness, or not wishing to gather info that would negatively affect their (or their sponsor's) agenda. This would also explain the "significance" of the otherwise worthless self-identified classification of the cyclists as avid or not.

The gist of their/your argument is obvious. The interests of 20 or so avid club/recreational cyclists who ride a century ride once a week, or maybe a couple of long training rides during the week and log the high number of miles, outweigh the interests of a couple of hundred non-avid youthful cyclists or utility cyclists who are not necessarily avid about running up mileage for mileage's sake. But instead are interested in using their bicycles to transport themselves frequently to their required destinations.

Probably doesn't hurt that those avid high mileage cyclists are probably on the right side of the tracks socially too and have the time to avidly cycle away to nowhere in particular.

[sggoodri]

I can think of two reasons why the "transportation" consultants were not interested in reporting a breakdown between commuting versus recreational mileage. Sloppiness, or not wishing to gather info that would negatively affect their (or their sponsor's) agenda. This would also explain the "significance" of the otherwise worthless self-identified classification of the cyclists as avid or not.

The gist of their/your argument is obvious. The interests of 20 or so avid club/recreational cyclists who ride a century ride once a week, or maybe a couple of long training rides during the week and log the high number of miles, outweigh the interests of a couple of hundred non-avid youthful cyclists or utility cyclists who are not necessarily avid about running up mileage for mileage's sake. But instead are interested in using their bicycles to transport themselves frequently to their required destinations.

Probably doesn't hurt that those avid high mileage cyclists are probably on the right side of the tracks socially too and have the time to avidly cycle away to nowhere in particular.

The recreational "century" class cyclists ride most of their long trips on rural routes outside the city limits, so those extra miles don't contribute as much to the survey data as one might think. There are a lot of upper-income avid bike commuters in the area, however, who commute 3-10 miles to work for fitness.

Surveys of the beginner cyclists indicated weak support for bike lane striping on thoroughfares insofar as many of them said that they wouldn't cycle on the thoroughfare roadways even if they were striped with bike lanes.

The largest number of bike commuters here who aren't in it for exercise and pleasure are low-income or unlicensed for motoring. This group doesn't participate much in public opinion polls; outreach to them has been difficult. (Fortunately, we have had greater success surveying low-income and latino pedestrians in our recent development of a pedestrian plan for Cary. Polls of the latino pedestrian community showed that they prioritized better conditions for crossing thoroughfares on foot, which contrasted with the priorities of the city council and upper-income "recreational" pedestrians who prioritized adding sidewalks to lower volume residential streets lacking them.) This segment of commuting cyclists seems to be firmly entrenched in a pedestrian style of cycling, and often rides at night without reflectors or lights. It's not clear that efforts to get them off of sidewalks and onto roadways would work or be particularly good for them in darkness unless we could also get them to use lights and reflectors, and to ride with rather than against traffic.

I personally think that standard-exceeding striped bike lanes would work better on thoroughfares with few junctions than the neighborhood collector roads where Cary is currently striping them, if, and this is a big if, Cary were to sweep them regularly and they were designed well, e.g. ending the striping well before intersection approaches and so forth. However, Cary does not seem ready to take over maintenance on state roads.

Meanwhile, I've focused my attention on trying to get our collector roads to be better planned and better connected, and to get the planned off-road greenway links to provide routes that are actually useful for reaching destinations via routes that are alternatives to the less pleasant arterials. Also, I've been trying to get Cary to provide better labeling of residential through streets on its bike map, to assist traffic-averse cyclists in planning bike trips on routes that avoid arterials.

Lastly, I like to ride to useful destinations with my novice cycling wife while I pull my 3yo son in the trailer. This weekend we cycled 6 or so miles from home through downtown then out to Bond Park, then 3-4 miles back through downtown and a couple miles south to eat lunch, then finally a couple more miles home. We dislike busy high speed arterials with narrow lanes, especially with our wide Burley trailer, and have empathy for traffic-averse cyclists trying to get somewhere. I would like to make the thoroughfares work better for all cyclists, but signing the sidewalks as bike paths or striping debris lanes aren't the right approaches, in my opinion.

[genec]

You want greater cooperation? Easy to say, but have you actually thought about what that means? What does it mean? Please don't dodge this. Where and when do you get insufficient cooperation to warrant calling for "greater" cooperation?


Well, lets start with your comment from another thread where you stated that you feel that less than 1% of motorists understand our rights to the road... meaning that in many cases those motorists you feel are cooperating with you, are really only trying to dodge you rather then giving you cooperation. Then lets deal with what it really feels like to have cooperation... such as the experience that Portland cyclists feel or better yet, some European cyclists... where the laws (according to what I have read here on BF) make motorists liable for collisions between cyclists and motorists, unless otherwise proven. Here in the US, one must prove "intent" on the part of the motorist (rather than "failure to avoid") before they are liable.

Now let's go one further... your experience doesn't count. You can and do ride anywhere under any and all conditions, (except in SB where you drive, or Portland... :rolleyes: ) and you appear to be somewhat insensitive to the actual cycling environment... your riding style and experience therefore render you incapable of judging what is good or bad for "other cyclists."

You are the Le Mans cyclist... you are fazed by nothing.

Only problem is, you do not represent the vast majority of cyclists out there.

Just as freeways are not designed for Le Mans drivers, but for "everyone else," cycling advocacy needs to address the needs of "everyone else." Not the exclusive needs of "experienced high milage cyclists" (whom even Forester admits his works were intended).

And since we are discussing the cycling environment (not the individual cyclist) what can be done to improve that environment... Well, I already listed a number of things... back in post 130. Add to that post: education for law enforcement (which you have noted is missing) and education of the other users of the road (which you also have admitted is lacking).

Now what I have further suggested is that if the cycling environment does reach that certain "nirvana" (a word which I only use as shorthand to represent a good cycling environment) then bike lanes would be redundant. Thus, you will have succeeded in one of your goals of eliminating bike lanes.

Wow, sounds like a win win proposition. No doubt you will not feel that way and will present me with a series of logic tests to verify my competence.

[Helmet Head]

I'm sorry, but I don't see an explanation of what "greater cooperation" means in your post, much less an answer to my specific question: Where and when do you get insufficient cooperation to warrant calling for "greater" cooperation?

Until we get that straightened out, I don't want to start down any other tangents.

[SSP]

Until we get that straightened out, I don't want to start down any other tangents.You, holding the line on "tangents"!!!???

Now that's funny.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

[Helmet Head]

You, holding the line on "tangents"!!!???

Now that's funny.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Why? I don't have anything against tangents, except starting new ones in the middle of something else.

[Helmet Head]

You want greater cooperation? Easy to say, but have you actually thought about what that means? What does it mean? Please don't dodge this. Where and when do you get insufficient cooperation to warrant calling for "greater" cooperation?

Well, lets start with your comment from another thread where you stated that you feel that less than 1% of motorists understand our rights to the road... meaning that in many cases those motorists you feel are cooperating with you, are really only trying to dodge you rather then giving you cooperation.
By the way, the above is not an answer to the question because despite the fact that there is little understanding of what our actual rights are, the vast majority of drivers never-the-less treats cyclists cooperatively. If you disagree, then, again, please specify where and when you get insufficient cooperation to warrant calling for "greater" cooperation.

Then lets deal with what it really feels like to have cooperation... such as the experience that Portland cyclists feel or better yet, some European cyclists... where the laws (according to what I have read here on BF) make motorists liable for collisions between cyclists and motorists, unless otherwise proven. Here in the US, one must prove "intent" on the part of the motorist (rather than "failure to avoid") before they are liable.
An assertive cyclist - one who does not simply stay out of the way - already tends to get better cooperation than most car drivers get. Vehicular cyclists on this forum report getting better cooperation when trying to change lanes, for example, while riding a bike than when driving a car. Why is it so important to get even "better cooperation" (however that would be manifested) when it's already so good?

The fact that one must prove "intent" to make a motorist who crashes into a cyclist liable in the U.S. does not significantly affect the cooperation that cyclists get. Motorists already don't want to hit cyclists, to avoid the hassle of doing so if not out of an innate concern for their fellow human. Any increase in cooperation cannot significantly affect the coooperation we cyclists get, since we already get full cooperation from the vast majority.

The problem is not a lack of actual cooperation, it's the (false) perception of a lack of cooperation.

You're trying to apply solutions that would make sense IF the problem was a lack of actual cooperation. But since the problem is a false perception (on the part of most cyclists who don't realize they can get plenty of cooperation if they just ask for it), your solutions to increase actual cooperation, which is already there, is the equivalent of dragging an ice box to the top of Mt. Everest: it's pointless redundancy.

We must address the real problem: that cyclist (false) perception problem regarding a lack of cooperation. Then we can solve it.

[Helmet Head]

Now let's go one further... your experience doesn't count. You can and do ride anywhere under any and all conditions, ...
But what makes me a "Le Mans" cyclist? I don't have particularly outstanding skills. The only difference is my perception - it's what I think about my rights and my realization that drivers by and large cooperate with me quite well, as long as I make my intent clear (ride visibly and predictably). This is also why I'm relatively relaxed in traffic (though vigilant and keeping my wits about me), rather than all stressed out about what "might" happen because someone out there might not have a good attitude about cyclists in the road. It's about perception; it's about state of mind.

Most problems in life are within the mind, and the solutions therefore must be address the mind, not various irrelevant externalities. Comfort cycling in traffic is no exception to this. The "problems", and the "solutions", with regard to the "cycling environment", are within the mind of each individual cyclist. That's what needs to be addressed. Not the actual environment.

[genec]

You're right... only you know what is right for all of us.