As VC as you can be, and still the drivers honk

[Bekologist]

Reading the latest threads in A&S, an observation has me in a bit of a quandry.

The dilemma Al experiences, of riding as VC as he can ride, and still getting a lot of grief from drivers. To me it sounds like Al is doing everything he can for his personal safety - riding in an assertive, vehicular manner, yet he still receives a lot of flack from drivers.

What, pray tell, is Al doing wrong?

I say, nothing. But there are some ideologues on bike forums who think Al just needs to make better lane adjustments to make all the roadway friction melt away.

I disagree. NO amount of VC riding will make unfriendly road conditions and irritated drivers go away.

The solution is a redesign of public space to be more accomodating to non motorized, non-autocentric travel. Integrated accomodations of all stripe and variety to make the public rights of way more usable for all, and safer for all nonmotorized members of the public. Bicylists, pedestrians crossing streets- everyone.

otherwise, the 'cyclist' advocacy approach will bring us all to "Al's Dilemma"- autocentric roadway space and the constant jockeying with angry drivers and friction with other road users.

I don't think american drivers are going to become any more polite and kind. instead, the counter seems likely. Drivers are going to become increasingly distracted, traffic will continue to get more congested in america.

I experience the same road grief Al describes. I get road friction while riding VC, often on four lane, uncrowded roads. I experience drivers just wanting to ride my ass, honking, yelling out their windows, berating me at stoplights, instead of simply changing lanes to pass. it happens weekly, almost daily on my commute.

I still believe riding on public roads will always entail a learning curve. Relying on the principles of VC alone, in lieu of better roadway design, riding an increasingly autocentric world, will leave bicyclists out in the cold, on the short end of the stick, jockeying for position on increasingly cruel streets. Al's dilemma.

[CommuterRun]

A lot of grief, or a lot of grief from just a few drivers? Some people seem to believe their sole purpose is to cause problems.

Case in point: I was riding home from work yesterday afternoon on a two-lane NOL. Bright, sunshiny, warm winter afternoon. Very light traffic. A pair of motorcycles coming up from behind, big Harleys. I've seen them coming and have shifted to the right tire track to allow them to pass without leaving the lane in the left tire track. I don't mind sharing the lane, even on an NOL, with passing motorcycles. One sounds the horn as they're approaching, like he thinks I'll get off the road and out of his way. Yeah, right, thaaat's gonna' happen.:rolleyes: The first biker passes in the left tire track, just like I planned. The second biker, Clown Boy, the one I suspect that blew the horn, buzzes me, passing in the center of the lane, in violation of Florida's 3 foot pasing law. Of course as soon as he passed, he rolled 'er open and used his bike to run away.

Now, it has been my experience that Clown Boy is not an example of a motorist, nor is he an example of a motorcyclist, or even a typical biker. What he is, is a fine example of an idiot. Almost every operator of any kind of vehicle is safer on the road than he. He, on his big, very loud Harley, showed a very typical Moron Cager attitude.

Idiots are all around us in every walk of life, but the vast majority of people are secure, mature, competent individuals most of the time.

[damnable]

Idiots are all around us in every walk of life, but the vast majority of people are secure, mature, competent individuals most of the time.

That is true. But it only takes one idiot to kill you.

[CommuterRun]

That is true. But it only takes one idiot to kill you.
That is equally true, but living in fear is not living.

If a cager (including yesterdays biker) gets bent out of shape for being behind me and having to slow down, it's their problem, not mine. They should have left earlier.

[Daily Commute]

Who cares if drivers honk? I find it more amusing than aggravating.

I agree with you that better roadway design is important, but we disagree on what that better roadway design is.

[genec]

I can't help but wonder how many idiots are "idiots" simply because they do not know that cyclists have the same rights to the road as everyone else.

Ever talk to a motorist? If you are ever in a public situation where conversation is happening freely, and folks do not know you as a cyclist... just ask the question of what folks think of bicycles on the road.

Much like the radio talk programs we hear of occasionally here on BF, you might be surprised to find that most motorists believe that bicycles do not belong on the road... and few motorists know that cyclists have legal rights to the road.

As long as those mis-impressions exist, the cycling environment may continue to be somewhat hostile... depending on your location and time of day.

It is high time for cycling advocacy to remind the driving public that driving is a privilege and cycling is a protected right... and in those states with 3 foot laws, these laws need to be made abundantly clear and be publicized in such a manner that the public cannot say "I wasn't aware of that."

[derath]

Wonderful! Great way to mis-characterize another topic to attack your nemesis Bek.

First off, I personally haven't heard any assertion that VC riding will turn all roads into a Utopia of cycling bliss. I find VC riding to make my cycling safer by making sure drivers see me and be able to predict my movements as I ride in a predictable manner. Not necessarily make the drivers happier.

Now much in the same way, you are trying to apply all of these things globally.

There are certainly places where VC style riding simply doesn't work effectively. In these cases I use a method coined by someone here. Something like "as far left as practical, as far right as safe" or something like that.

Now to bike facilities. I am not patently anti facility. There are certainly places that facilities make sense. In fact there was a thread months ago by our resident BL babe, Diane, where your nemesis, HH actually AGREED with Diane that in her instance the bike path made sense to bypass a dangerous section of road.

But lets say for the sake of argument that you are right and the answer is simply more facilities. How long will that take. Even if the govt makes a 180 and is in full agreement, these projects take time. Sometime LOTS of time. What should we all do until they are done? Hang up our bikes and wait?

I will continue to employ whatever tactics make the most sense on a given stretch of roadway that help me to ride safely.

-D

[chipcom]

Since the invention of the automobile drivers have honked at things they perceive to be in their way. It is what it is and not worth getting all worked up about.

[rule]

If shifting to a more quiet route won't eliminate the problem, you can try adjusting your hours. If you ride a route enough, people will even get used to you being there. All in all though, it pretty much is what it is. And I agree with chipcom, if its not you, drivers will generally find something else to honk at instead. It's what they do.

[jwc]

If shifting to a more quiet route won't eliminate the problem, you can try adjusting your hours. If you ride a route enough, people will even get used to you being there. All in all though, it pretty much is what it is. And I agree with chipcom, if its not you, drivers will generally find something else to honk at instead. It's what they do.

I agree with people getting used to you being there, especially when commuting the same route everyday. I never counted cars, but I seem to notice less traffic in the morning and afternoon than when I first started commuting down a narrow two lane road. I've also noticed, in my mirror, cars that turn off the street I'm riding and take the next street. I tend to think that since I ride at the same times everyday, drivers avoid that street during that time period.

I've only been honked at three times that I can remember. Once by a stranger for some unknown reason since it was a very wide road and I was no where near the center of the lane, and twice by a friend wanting to "say" hello.

[Helmet Head]

That is true. But it only takes one idiot to kill you.
Of the 800 or so cyclist deaths in the U.S. per year, do you have any idea how many are killed by "idiot" motorists (motorists who intentionally do stupid/dangerous things around cyclists because they believe cyclists do not belong on the road) as opposed to deaths primarily caused by irresponsible behavior on the part of the cyclist, or drivers innocently overlooking inconspicuous (sensory or cognitive) cyclists?

If someone put a gun to your head and said they would pull the trigger if you did not share your best guess, what would you say?

[Helmet Head]

But there are some ideologues on bike forums who think Al just needs to make better lane adjustments to make all the roadway friction melt away.
I do not know of anyone who thinks this.

Who exactly on bike forums thinks that "Al just needs to make better lane adjustments to make all the roadway friction melt away"? And what did they say that made you think that about them?

Lane adjustments can help with much if not most of the friction out there, but certainly not all.

[Helmet Head]

Since the invention of the automobile drivers have honked at things they perceive to be in their way. It is what it is and not worth getting all worked up about.
:beer:

It's not worth "getting all worked up about", and it's certainly not worth justifying a "redesign of public space to be more accomodating to non motorized, non-autocentric travel."

[bac]

All in all though, it pretty much is what it is.

Yup, that is the simple truth. I can't remember one road ride I've done sans at least a honk, or two. Those do not bother me one bit. It's the guys that brush my handlebars @ 50mph that bother me. However, as stated - it is what it is, and there is very little we cyclists can do to protect ourselves.

[Bekologist]

Al's dilemma, and the calling out of al's failure of lane position, was just beat to death in another thread, helmet head. I wonder what that was all about? Derath, I'm not 'attacking' my 'nemesis', I'm posting a valid A&S topic.

the redesign of public rights of way for all users of public space, including non motorized forms of transportation, IS worth it. and that is my contention.

Reclaim roadway space away from the automobile. Is everyone familiar with suburban roads without sidewalks?

why don't walkers have space to walk safely along suburban streets? why are kids forced into dangerous situations because there isn't accomodation for them?

Why shouldn't traffic lanes be taken over, re-engineered and redesigned to provide space for safe, nonmotorized travel of all hoof, heel and wheel?

The reclaimation of public rights of way for safer use by all is possible, desirable, and doable. Kids need sidewalks to walk on, bicyclists can benefit from quality on-the-road accomodations -including those wide outside lanes y'all anti bike lane people love so much, and integrated, high quality bike facilities.

Wide outside lanes, bike lanes, and facilties for all non motorized users of public rights of way is a desirable goal.

JUST LAST NIGHT riding home at 9 p.m., i was stopped at a traffic light on a four laner with RH and LH turn lanes at 5-way intersection. Very little traffic. one car to my left, i was squarely in the right hand travel lane. a car approached behind. did they choose the position behind the other car? NO, they choose to spool up behind me, revving the engine. At the turn of the light, because it was icy, i started off wihout my usual hammer down technique that leaves me a half block away from the cars.

Did the car politely pass me by simply moving left? No, they decided to honk, rev up, close pass and flip me off from the window.

Without a shift in public perception and greater roadway accomodations, we will have a nation increasing bike unfriendly and become stuck in what I'm going to call the "Arizona dilemma" - unfriendly roads, angry drivers, not a lot of bicycling.

VC education is not the cure, because most automobile drivers don't generally take LAB I classes :) I'm assuming.

[Bekologist]

drivers 'innocently' overlooking other roadway users, regardless of lane position, is irresponsible negligence, not innocence, head. drivers have heavy responsibility to pedestrians, other vehicles, and hazards not normally associated with the middle of the travel lanes. 'innocently' hitting a cyclist? how about 'negligently' instead?

[sbhikes]

Cyclists are part of a system that includes motor vehicle operators. To think that you can solve any problem by targeting only a single part of the system is foolish. To teach people to ride bicycles safely you have to also teach drivers the rules of the road. To build safe roads you must build them for the safety of all users of the system. It's pretty obvious to me.

Chest beating bravado about how it "doesn't bother me" doesn't solve anything. Like Brian Ratliff said in another thread, it's like you have to get militant to ride a bike in some places. Maybe I don't want to join the military.

[Brian Ratliff]

It's a valid question to ask: What is the public space being used for?

In some ways, the VC retoric characterized by HH above:
t's not worth "getting all worked up about", and it's certainly not worth justifying a "redesign of public space to be more accomodating to non motorized, non-autocentric travel."

is similar in spirit to the "85%" rule used in California and Arizona to dictate speed limits on roads. It seems to make sense to "just deal" with the problem of car traffic in an auto-centric environment rather than try to change the environment. But just as the 85% rule seems okay on the surface, but due to some quirks in enforcement, simply leads to escalating speed limits, the attitude of "just deal with it" will lead to escalated auto-centric-ness (if that's a word). Cyclists in Oregon have pushed back against the auto-centric aspect of road design by forcing road designers to take into account non-motorized traffic. The result is a de-escalation of road design and a better cycling environment (I say this without qualification because it is my environment and has been for the last 7 years. IOWs, I've seen the change with my own eyes).

If you just accept, accept, accept; all you get is worse, and worse, and worse road conditions. You have to train yourself to ride in the current environment, but at the same time, you have to push back against that environment if you want to see change for the better. Realize, that with auto traffic increasing everywhere, sticking with the "status quo" for a road does not mean keeping the road physically the same. Sticking with the status quo is the same as saying "yes, go ahead and optimize the road futher for auto-traffic. Don't worry about me or people like me. We'll deal with anything you give us."

[derath]

the redesign of public rights of way for all users of public space, including non motorized forms of transportation, IS worth it. and that is my contention.

Ok let's say for sake of argument that you are right. And I do believe there are plenty of cases where more bicycle accomdated roads make sense.

Now, given how we all know government to work, even when they are in agreement, it is safe to say this isn't going to happen overnight. Or possibly even within a decade.

So Bek (and Diane), what should we suggest about the "Al dilemna?" Because even if advocacy is the best Long Term answer, he is going to have to ride on those rodes likely for years before they get it done. I guess maybe he should just drive his car until they get his accomodations.

That is why I usually talk about cycling the way I do. Not because I am a manly cyclist beating my chest. Because at the end of the day, whether we win the fight for a bike lane here or a path there, tomorrow the road is going to be the same as the way it was today.

[Bekologist]

brian states he has seen changes in the last seven years In Oregon , and I have seen certainely similar, albiet lesser progress on similar fronts in Seattle over the last decade.

Change is slow, but it IS possible, derath. no need to go defeatist.

[derath]

brian states he has seen changes in the last seven years In Oregon , and I have seen certainely similar, albiet lesser progress on similar fronts in Seattle over the last decade.

Change is slow, but it IS possible, derath. no need to go defeatist.


Bek, I know it is a subtle difference, but I am not being defeatist. I am being REALISTIC. It's great to see change, but since change IS slow, as you have stated, it is important to work on things we can do NOW to make our cycling more effective and safer. For better or worse, that usually means figuring out things WE as cyclists can do since we are the only ones in control of our actions.

Good job ducking my question though.


-D

[Daily Commute]

Since the invention of the automobile drivers have honked at things they perceive to be in their way. It is what it is and not worth getting all worked up about.

:beer:

It's not worth "getting all worked up about", and it's certainly not worth justifying a "redesign of public space to be more accomodating to non motorized, non-autocentric travel."

Eegads, chipcom, you have said something that both HH and I wholeheartedly agree with.

[PsySal]

Since the invention of the automobile drivers have honked at things they perceive to be in their way. It is what it is and not worth getting all worked up about.

Yep, this is absolutely true. VC isn't really about feeling safe in your imagination, rather it's about being safe. I tend to think that the yahoos who honk at you (and I get honked at somewhat frequently) are precicely those who would buzz you anyways, or not be paying attention. Better that they get annoyed and honk.

I also notice that those most annoyed are usually 18-25 year old males driving crappy cars with their friends in tow. The responsible adults out there don't seem to mind and instead do seem to appreciate that I'm riding predictably and visibly. If I'm going to orient my behaviour around one or another group, it's not going to be the "morons" out there.

[derath]

Eegads, chipcom, you have said something that both HH and I wholeheartedly agree with.


Wow this thread is bringing people together. Better find the delete Bek, I think your thread is backfiring.

-D

[sbhikes]

By all means let's continue to support road designs that encourage violence and intimidation. And let's us 'advocates' continue to offer no resistance to public spaces designed to profit the few (oil, auto and developer interests) at the expense of the many (all other life on the planet).

[Daily Commute]

Yep, this is absolutely true. VC isn't really about feeling safe in your imagination, rather it's about being safe. I tend to think that the yahoos who honk at you (and I get honked at somewhat frequently) are precicely those who would buzz you anyways, or not be paying attention. Better that they get annoyed and honk. . . .
Good point. If they are paying enough attention to keep their hand on the horn for 17 seconds, they are paying attention. Also, the horn lets us know exactly where they are.

[derath]

By all means let's continue to support road designs that encourage violence and intimidation. And let's us 'advocates' continue to offer no resistance to public spaces designed to profit the few (oil, auto and developer interests) at the expense of the many (all other life on the planet).


Reading comprehension again Diane.

-D

[SingingSabre]

Who cares if drivers honk? I find it more amusing than aggravating.

I agree with you that better roadway design is important, but we disagree on what that better roadway design is.

When someone honks at you, they are empowering you with their emotional state. Don't see it? Here is my theory.

People get stressed out easily (look at the rate of compulsive eaters, dieters, emotionally based eating disorders, heart attacks, etc. in this country). If someone has to move around you, sometimes see you as interrupting their very fragile idea of personal manifest destiny. Ergo, when someone insecure with themself has to move around you, you've intruded into their personal subconsious mission in life. This infuriates them. They honk at you and get even more stressed out.

Then they go to work or to home and complain, moan, and whine about some stupid cyclist on the road. That raises their blood pressure, and without a form of exercise to bring it back down, they get even more stressed out.

That's how I think of it, at least. They honk at me, I laugh and smile at their empowering gestures.

[sbhikes]

It's no wonder cycling is mostly a young male sport. :rolleyes:

[rando]

screw it. I bike where there is less and/or slower traffic, where I am less likely to get yelled at or honked. off the major arterials.

[derath]

It's no wonder cycling is mostly a young male sport. :rolleyes:


That's it. Ignore the real issues and make your pointless comments again.

Let me restate my question. Since Bek wants to ignore it, maybe you will answer.

Let's say for sake of argument, that our local advocacy group can win big and the local govt says they will re-engineer all of the roads in Baltimore city to be more bike friendly.

How long will that project take? 5 years? 10 years? Longer?

So answer me this. While we all wait for utopia to be built what should we do? Just forget about cycling on the less friendly roads? (roads like "Al's dilmemna). Or should we ride them as best as we can?

And when we come here talking about these roads, what will help us the most RIGHT NOW. Talking about advocating better? Or talking about techniques we can do RIGHT NOW, to help improve our safety on these roads.

Don't get me wrong, advocacy is a great long term solution. And while I am not a huge fan of bike lanes and such, I am happy to see anything that increases cycling in the US.

BUT, advocacy and re-engineering is a LONG TERM SOLUTION. We also need short term solutions, which for better or worse is largely things WE can do as cyclists to ride the existing roads as safely as possible.

See the problem I have with advocates such as you Diane, is that your answer is usually "you need more bike lanes" Well that is a great answer, but it doesn't solve the dilemna of What can I do to improve my riding TOMORROW. Because I have yet to see a road re-engineered in 24 hours.

It is valid to talk about such things as VC techniques (I prefer defensive cycling, as I have never read anything about VC) AND talk about advocacy.

Sorry this reply got long. I hope you can read and comprehend. I know it is usually easier to just read the first line and make some flippant remark, but I am really hoping to get a meaningful answer this time.

-D

[Daily Commute]

It's no wonder cycling is mostly a young male sport. :rolleyes:
Yes, because it is such a typical young-male thing to use words like "empowering" and to let hostility roll off your back rather than to respond with yet more hostility. :rolleyes:

[sbhikes]

Men just don't understand that public, anonymous violence is something to naturally flee from.

[derath]

Men just don't understand that public, anonymous violence is something to naturally flee from.

And there she goes again ignoring a direct question.

-D

[I-Like-To-Bike]

It's no wonder cycling is mostly a young male sport. :rolleyes:
Diane,
Don't confuse a handful of VC Jokers' statements about their "empowerment" or other posturing nonsense as being representative of men, young men, or cyclists. They represent themselves; mostly a tiny band of characters who are blinded by the light burst from their VC™ epiphany.

My suggestion - don't respond to the badgering from this bunch. If anything, refer it to the moderators for their consideration and appropriate action.

[derath]

Diane,
Don't confuse a handful of VC Jokers' statements about their "empowerment" or other posturing nonsense as being representative of men, young men, or cyclists. They represent themselves; mostly a tiny band of characters who are blinded by the light burst from their VC™ epiphany.

My suggestion - don't respond to the badgering from this bunch. If anything, refer it to the moderators for their consideration and appropriate action.


Yes, when someone disagrees with you, just ignore it.

ILTB, you like to talk. Read reply #31 and give me your thoughts. Or am I just "posturing" ?

-D

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Yes, when someone disagrees with you, just ignore it.

ILTB, you like to talk. Read reply #31 and give me your thoughts. Or am I just "posturing" ?

-D
From post #31 "I hope you can read and comprehend". My thoughts? Enuff said.

[derath]

From post #31 "I hope you can read and comprehend". My thoughts? Enuff said.

Can't say I am surprised. Duck and divert. If you all aren't politicians, you should be.

-D

[donnamb]

Men just don't understand that public, anonymous violence is something to naturally flee from.
Thank you.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Can't say I am surprised. Duck and divert. If you all aren't politicians, you should be.

-D
Baloney! You asked for my thoughts, and I graciously gave you what I thought of your insults to another poster. Why should anyone respond to loaded questions from you, especially when you state up front your belief that those who disagree cannot read or comprehend your wisdom.

[derath]

Baloney! You asked for my thoughts, and I graciously gave you what I thought of your insults to another poster.

Point taken. And I will publicly apologize for being a bit too hard on Diane. Sorry Diane, please forgive me.

Why should anyone respond to loaded questions from you, especially when you state up front your belief that those who disagree cannot read or comprehend your wisdom.

A mischaracterization once again however. I don't at all believe that those who disagree cannot read or comprehend my wisdom.

I do however have had many times, especially with Diane, situations where she likes to take one sentence out of context and twist it to her own liking. Not only my posts. So as I have said in other threads it is either a deliberate act to twist the truth, or she just isn't reading the post.

And my question is far from loaded. Bek's contention in starting this thread is that VC techniques are not the answer. That re-engineered accomodations are. My question to that has been essentially, "so what are we to do in the meantime?" as we all know roadwork etc can take a very long time to complete, while we all still have to ride everyday.

So somehow talking about cycling techniques becomes anti accomodation. In some cases there are those at the extremes. But many are just being practical in the understanding that we have to deal with the roads as they currently are, whether better accomodations are forthcoming or not.


And then Diane just calls it a "macho guy thing"


-D

[Daily Commute]

Men just don't understand that public, anonymous violence is something to naturally flee from.
Honking ain't violence.

[CommuterRun]

Chest beating bravado about how it "doesn't bother me" doesn't solve anything. Like Brian Ratliff said in another thread, it's like you have to get militant to ride a bike in some places. Maybe I don't want to join the military.
Okay I'll bite. Why should I let someone else's impatience and immaturity bother me? They don't own the road. It's a public access, multiple use component of the infrastructure, no more theirs than mine.

Cyclists are part of a system that includes motor vehicle operators. To think that you can solve any problem by targeting only a single part of the system is foolish. To teach people to ride bicycles safely you have to also teach drivers the rules of the road. To build safe roads you must build them for the safety of all users of the system. It's pretty obvious to me.
This I can absolutely agree with. Multiple narrow lanes so that motorists can pass in a same direction lane and signage advising cyclists to use a full lane width are all that is needed.

Like Daily Commute said, Honking ain't violence.
It just shows that, that particular motorist blows.

[sbhikes]

Honking ain't violence.

Then what is it? Best wishes for your future happiness? Hugs all around?

[CommuterRun]

None of the above, it's just a pinhead way of saying, "Move over."
And if I don't, what does pinhead do?
He goes around me.
Which is exactly what every other motorist does, but the competent ones know how to pass without the fanfare.

[buzzman]

Honking ain't violence.

If, by "honking" we're not talking about a "toot-toot I'm here!" but a "get the eff off the road or I'll..." then it could be perceived as a threat of violence. Or at least a form of aggression.

Now maybe for many of the men who ride and post here this kind of aggression, ie. on a lonely country road when you're riding alone, may be seen as a challenge and not so much of a threat. But for many women and some male cyclists this is a form of intimidation that at the very least makes cycling less enjoyable if not feeling downright dangerous. It may not result in accidents, deaths or injury but may, as Diane points out, be enough to keep all but the more aggressive among us (often young males) to see cycling as a transportation alternative or recreational option.

Bek's original post may not have as much application to stronger, faster riders able to hold their lane position in a variety of circumstances but for the rest of the people who might contemplate riding a bike with some regularity this is an obstacle to their enjoyment of riding.

One of the reasons I don't drive to work is driver aggression. I simply don't enjoy driving in Boston traffic I'd prefer a bike. It's much easier for me to avoid it on a bike by either riding on bike paths, where it's simply not an issue, or by riding intelligently and defensively on the road. That same aggression targeting cyclists is enough to discourage a lot of riders.

[kalliergo]

...stronger, faster riders able to hold their lane position in a variety of circumstances...

Holding lane position has nothing to do with being strong or fast. I'm feeble and slow and I do it all the time.

[buzzman]

Holding lane position has nothing to do with being strong or fast. I'm feeble and slow and I do it all the time.

and do people honk at you?

[sbhikes]

None of the above, it's just a pinhead way of saying, "Move over."
And if I don't, what does pinhead do?
He goes around me.
Which is exactly what every other motorist does, but the competent ones know how to pass without the fanfare.

It's interesting that a honk means "Move over", not "Pardon me" like polite pedestrians might say to each other, or "On your left" like polite cyclists say when passing other people. No, indeed, it means "Move over", and in fact, you know as well as I do that there is a comma after the word "over" and a couple of possible fill-in-the-blanks that are naturally implied. Such as, "Move over, you _____". Or, "Move over, or else ____".

To me, anonymous public aggressive behavior is a form of violence. It is a threat. And coming from someone with the means to seriously harm me, it is even an assault. And when frequently accompanied by actual threatening behavior, such as deliberately aiming a car toward me, a honk is often a warning or promise to escalate violence if I don't comply with whatever request is being made.

And if I don't comply? What is the potential harm to me? What can I expect? Maybe all I can expect is a close pass, which maybe I shouldn't be worried about. But what if the car contains several young men? Can I expect worse? How about some kind of violence involving personal contact. Perhaps a slap on my rear or who knows, gang rape? How do I know how far it will go?

Overreacting? You don't know the anonymous violence I have experienced. I know what people are capable of.

Why on earth should I settle for this? I pay my taxes. There is no law that says only motor vehicle operators are allowed to use the public roadways. I have a right to a public roadway system that provides safe access to me. If it doesn't exist, what do I do then? Just let it roll off my back, shrug it off, get all zen and the art of war about it?

Hell no. I advocate for a better system. I have tried many different systems and the one that works best for me is a system that includes on- and off-street roadway accommodations specifically designed for bicycle traffic. You may not like this because it denies you the chance to prove your superiority a VC cyclist. But believe it or not, more people feel the way I do than feel the way you do.

[CommuterRun]

To me, there's not that much drama involved with any of it.

The violence you describe can, and does, happen in a multitude of scenarios that have nothing to do with cycling.

In fact, come to think of it, there were a number of assaults and robberies up in Tallahassee some years back where the punks used a MUP as their MO, jumping whoever happened by that looked like an easy target, including cyclists. If I remember right, most of the victims were bicycling college co-eds. So in that respect, it could be argued that they would have been safer riding parallel, but separated by a wooded strip, Woodville Hwy, rather than the MUP.