sbhikes
06-28-07, 01:13 PM
Why is it that Vehicular Cyclists are opposed to motorist education?
View Full Version : Why do Vehicular Cyclists not even want to try?
genec
06-28-07, 01:16 PM
Why is it that Vehicular Cyclists are opposed to motorist education?
Well HH's response was that motorists already do a good enough job.
Well HH's response was that motorists already do a good enough job.
John Forester
06-28-07, 01:57 PM
Why is it that Vehicular Cyclists are opposed to motorist education?
Your own question states quite clearly the degree to which you suffer from your ideology. Where have you seen that vehicular cyclists oppose motorist education? You surely have never seen that from me.
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
Frankly, a great deal of the discussion on these lists is just another demonstration of the great need for better cyclist behavior.
Your own question states quite clearly the degree to which you suffer from your ideology. Where have you seen that vehicular cyclists oppose motorist education? You surely have never seen that from me.
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
Frankly, a great deal of the discussion on these lists is just another demonstration of the great need for better cyclist behavior.
noisebeam
06-28-07, 03:03 PM
Why did you start a new thread on the topic when this one is fresh? OK, this one is not about the assumed opinions of VCists specifically, but the thoughts of everyone. You can find some of the reasons here, not only that but they have been stated many times previous.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=314261
This is what I wrote previously (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4696609&postcount=118)about education:
Want to reduce all road user (including cyclists) fatalities? - train motorists in general safe driving practices - a non-cycling specific advocacy effort.
Want to reduce cycling fatalities as a cycling advocate? - train cyclists."
Al
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=314261
This is what I wrote previously (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4696609&postcount=118)about education:
Want to reduce all road user (including cyclists) fatalities? - train motorists in general safe driving practices - a non-cycling specific advocacy effort.
Want to reduce cycling fatalities as a cycling advocate? - train cyclists."
Al
Helmet Head
06-28-07, 06:06 PM
Well HH's response was that motorists already do a good enough job.
Partial credit. I don't oppose motorist education for crying out loud.
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
Exactly. Once in a while I think, "huh, they identified an issue on which Forester and I disagree", but usually you end up stating the same position I hold more succinctly that I ever could. Case in point.
Back to lurking.
Partial credit. I don't oppose motorist education for crying out loud.
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
Exactly. Once in a while I think, "huh, they identified an issue on which Forester and I disagree", but usually you end up stating the same position I hold more succinctly that I ever could. Case in point.
Back to lurking.
larryfeltonj
06-28-07, 06:30 PM
Why is it that Vehicular Cyclists are opposed to motorist education?
Do you really believe this? I'd like to see the requirements for a driver's license in the U.S. be much more stringent, and I wouldn't oppose driver's licenses for cyclists either.
Do you really believe this? I'd like to see the requirements for a driver's license in the U.S. be much more stringent, and I wouldn't oppose driver's licenses for cyclists either.
I-Like-To-Bike
06-28-07, 06:40 PM
Do you really believe this? I'd like to see the requirements for a driver's license in the U.S. be much more stringent, and I wouldn't oppose driver's licenses for cyclists either.
Yeah, I bet you wouldn't mind at all.:rolleyes: And just what training will bicyclists need to qualify for that license in your wishful thinking scenario?:rolleyes:
Yeah, I bet you wouldn't mind at all.:rolleyes: And just what training will bicyclists need to qualify for that license in your wishful thinking scenario?:rolleyes:
larryfeltonj
06-28-07, 06:54 PM
Yeah, I bet you wouldn't mind at all.:rolleyes: And just what training will bicyclists need to qualify for that license in your wishful thinking scenario?:rolleyes:
Congratulations! Your response has just summed up "Why I'm a vehicular cyclist" better than I could ever have done it.
In my own view cyclists are a legitimate part of the traffic flow. In order to operate safely in traffic there are many skills involved, from not falling over (I think most cyclists above four years old can handle that one), to how to pass, change lanes, make left turns, signal intention to other drivers, and what the various signs and traffic signals signify. In addition to those things common to drivers of all vehicles there are a few skills particular to cyclists (how to not get squeezed into the curb in a narrow lane, how to share a lane on a right turn).
Do you think that cycling is such a trivial activity that it should be assumed that even an untrained child can do it?
Congratulations! Your response has just summed up "Why I'm a vehicular cyclist" better than I could ever have done it.
In my own view cyclists are a legitimate part of the traffic flow. In order to operate safely in traffic there are many skills involved, from not falling over (I think most cyclists above four years old can handle that one), to how to pass, change lanes, make left turns, signal intention to other drivers, and what the various signs and traffic signals signify. In addition to those things common to drivers of all vehicles there are a few skills particular to cyclists (how to not get squeezed into the curb in a narrow lane, how to share a lane on a right turn).
Do you think that cycling is such a trivial activity that it should be assumed that even an untrained child can do it?
I-Like-To-Bike
06-28-07, 07:03 PM
Congratulations! Your response has just summed up "Why I'm a vehicular cyclist" better than I could ever have done it.
In my own view cyclists are a legitimate part of the traffic flow. In order to operate safely in traffic there are many skills involved, from not falling over (I think most cyclists above four years old can handle that one), to how to pass, change lanes, make left turns, signal intention to other drivers, and what the various signs and traffic signals signify. In addition to those things common to drivers of all vehicles there are a few skills particular to cyclists (how to not get squeezed into the curb in a narrow lane, how to share a lane on a right turn).
Do you think that cycling is such a trivial activity that it should be assumed that even an untrained child can do it?
It ain't rocket science either. How 'bout cutting to the chase about this training/testing/licensing scheme for untrained children and untrained adults that you think is such a good idea? What training program in specific did you have in mind? Surprise me!:rolleyes:
In my own view cyclists are a legitimate part of the traffic flow. In order to operate safely in traffic there are many skills involved, from not falling over (I think most cyclists above four years old can handle that one), to how to pass, change lanes, make left turns, signal intention to other drivers, and what the various signs and traffic signals signify. In addition to those things common to drivers of all vehicles there are a few skills particular to cyclists (how to not get squeezed into the curb in a narrow lane, how to share a lane on a right turn).
Do you think that cycling is such a trivial activity that it should be assumed that even an untrained child can do it?
It ain't rocket science either. How 'bout cutting to the chase about this training/testing/licensing scheme for untrained children and untrained adults that you think is such a good idea? What training program in specific did you have in mind? Surprise me!:rolleyes:
larryfeltonj
06-28-07, 07:12 PM
It ain't rocket science either. How 'bout cutting to the chase about this training/testing/licensing scheme for untrained children and untrained adults that you think is such a good idea? What training program in specific did you have in mind? Surprise me!:rolleyes:
I actually thought I did in the last post. If I had to devise a driver's license test for cyclists it would be much like a test for drivers of motor vehicles. There would be a written test and a road test. It would cover the skills necessary to drive in traffic.
Now answer my question. Is cycling in traffic such a trivial activity that an untrained child can do it?
I actually thought I did in the last post. If I had to devise a driver's license test for cyclists it would be much like a test for drivers of motor vehicles. There would be a written test and a road test. It would cover the skills necessary to drive in traffic.
Now answer my question. Is cycling in traffic such a trivial activity that an untrained child can do it?
I-Like-To-Bike
06-28-07, 07:48 PM
Now answer my question. Is cycling in traffic such a trivial activity that an untrained child can do it?
Yes Sir!:eek: But that isn't your original question, is it?
Cycling is an activity that millions of children and adults have done safely around the world without any special training, testing or licensing for a hundred years or so.
Yes Sir!:eek: But that isn't your original question, is it?
Cycling is an activity that millions of children and adults have done safely around the world without any special training, testing or licensing for a hundred years or so.
AlmostTrick
06-28-07, 08:12 PM
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
True, but I have to believe that the cyclists on this board that are asking for better motorist training, are NOT exhibiting "inferior traffic behavior" but instead most likely follow the rules of the road better than many motorists do. So for them, (and me) motorist training would provide more benefit.
True, but I have to believe that the cyclists on this board that are asking for better motorist training, are NOT exhibiting "inferior traffic behavior" but instead most likely follow the rules of the road better than many motorists do. So for them, (and me) motorist training would provide more benefit.
sbhikes
06-28-07, 08:24 PM
I regularly see motorists who:
1) Do not know they are required to merge into the bike lane before turning
2) Do not understand that if a bicycle is in the center of the lane doing close to the speed limit that they should not try to pass
3) Pass bicyclists unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both
4) Believe that cyclists have no rights to the road and thus harass cyclists with dangerous behavior to teach them a lesson
5) Drive 40 mph in school zones in order to pass cyclists going 20
6) Write letters to the editor of the local paper about the "bicycle" problem, which is that there are bicycles on the road who "shouldn't be there."
And I live in a cycling-frienly town. It's much worse in other places.
Motorists need more education. They simply do not understand. And with 4000lbs of metal to use to enforce their self-righteous ignorance upon you, I believe it is in our best interest to inform them.
1) Do not know they are required to merge into the bike lane before turning
2) Do not understand that if a bicycle is in the center of the lane doing close to the speed limit that they should not try to pass
3) Pass bicyclists unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both
4) Believe that cyclists have no rights to the road and thus harass cyclists with dangerous behavior to teach them a lesson
5) Drive 40 mph in school zones in order to pass cyclists going 20
6) Write letters to the editor of the local paper about the "bicycle" problem, which is that there are bicycles on the road who "shouldn't be there."
And I live in a cycling-frienly town. It's much worse in other places.
Motorists need more education. They simply do not understand. And with 4000lbs of metal to use to enforce their self-righteous ignorance upon you, I believe it is in our best interest to inform them.
noisebeam
06-28-07, 10:07 PM
1 - Of course not, why cross a white line and drive partially in a lane that is too narrow to fit in, a lane that most cyclists get all uptight about when a motorist otherwise gets near, let alone enters. This problem should be fixed not thru training, but by changing the confusing paint on the road and varied laws across the US and mixed messages about bike lanes.
2 - Why? The only possible (but not certain depending how close to SL the cyclist is riding) illegal behavior is speeding. Most motorists find it is safer to pass a bit above the SL than to pass for an extended period while not going over. I drive my SUV at the SL and get passed all the time by other vehicles going a bit faster. Why should it be wrong to pass a slower cyclist? Is that a new law you want?
3 - This is driving safety, not cyclist specific. Motorist pass other vehicles of all kinds in dangerous situations - spend a weekend driving rural mountain grade/curve roads in AZ at the SL and you will be passed at dangerous places all the time. I agree that drivers should be educated about this, but not as a cycling specific training
4 - Most motorists know cyclists can use the road legally. Cyclist do it all the time and everyone witnesses this and there are no news stories of cracking down on illegal cycling on the road and never comments in the news that the cyclist was illegally using the road. On the contrary most bike accident stories where I live are about cyclists who get hit when on the sidewalk. The problem is not that motorists don't know the rights and the law, its that they don't want cyclist to have the rights. Put law enforcement witness present and that same motorist will not harass. They know it is wrong.
5 - Basic illegal driving behavior. Nothing to do with cycling specifically. Motorists speed and get away with it. Enforcement helps. Many school zones are heavily enforced where I live and speeding is rarely a problem. It is the one area with zero tollerance to speeding (i.e. not 11mph over allowed as in other areas)
6 - That is an attitude problem. We discussed extensively in a different thread. The 'problem' is that cyclists have rights. The 'solution' is to take them away. Bike lanes and MUPs (both of which I am not in fully against) also help erode those rights.
Al
2 - Why? The only possible (but not certain depending how close to SL the cyclist is riding) illegal behavior is speeding. Most motorists find it is safer to pass a bit above the SL than to pass for an extended period while not going over. I drive my SUV at the SL and get passed all the time by other vehicles going a bit faster. Why should it be wrong to pass a slower cyclist? Is that a new law you want?
3 - This is driving safety, not cyclist specific. Motorist pass other vehicles of all kinds in dangerous situations - spend a weekend driving rural mountain grade/curve roads in AZ at the SL and you will be passed at dangerous places all the time. I agree that drivers should be educated about this, but not as a cycling specific training
4 - Most motorists know cyclists can use the road legally. Cyclist do it all the time and everyone witnesses this and there are no news stories of cracking down on illegal cycling on the road and never comments in the news that the cyclist was illegally using the road. On the contrary most bike accident stories where I live are about cyclists who get hit when on the sidewalk. The problem is not that motorists don't know the rights and the law, its that they don't want cyclist to have the rights. Put law enforcement witness present and that same motorist will not harass. They know it is wrong.
5 - Basic illegal driving behavior. Nothing to do with cycling specifically. Motorists speed and get away with it. Enforcement helps. Many school zones are heavily enforced where I live and speeding is rarely a problem. It is the one area with zero tollerance to speeding (i.e. not 11mph over allowed as in other areas)
6 - That is an attitude problem. We discussed extensively in a different thread. The 'problem' is that cyclists have rights. The 'solution' is to take them away. Bike lanes and MUPs (both of which I am not in fully against) also help erode those rights.
Al
The Human Car
06-29-07, 06:34 AM
Frankly, a great deal of the discussion on these lists is just another demonstration of the great need for better cyclist behavior.
There are far too many conversations on these forums where a car cuts a cyclists off and causes [a near] accident and every one jumps on the cyclists and what they could have done better. While there is a great deal of benefit in understanding how we can control situations like this they no way in H*** that these demonstrate that cyclists have the greater need for education because of all the dumb A** things motorist do.
There are far too many conversations on these forums where a car cuts a cyclists off and causes [a near] accident and every one jumps on the cyclists and what they could have done better. While there is a great deal of benefit in understanding how we can control situations like this they no way in H*** that these demonstrate that cyclists have the greater need for education because of all the dumb A** things motorist do.
joejack951
06-29-07, 06:44 AM
There are far too many conversations on these forums where a car cuts a cyclists off and causes [a near] accident and every one jumps on the cyclists and what they could have done better. While there is a great deal of benefit in understanding how we can control situations like this they no way in H*** that these demonstrate that cyclists have the greater need for education because of all the dumb A** things motorist do.
When a cyclist is going straight from the edge of the road where a right turn is allowed and a motorist turns in front of them, of course there's plenty the cyclist could have done better. Do you really think it's dumb of a motorist to not try and drive in a bike lane to make their right turn? How often are motorists presented with traffic lanes that are too narrow for them to drive in aside from bike lanes? How consistent are laws from state to state regarding bike lane usage by motor vehicles? I know DE doesn't even address bike lanes in the vehicle code and I don't think MD does either (could be wrong though).
When a cyclist is going straight from the edge of the road where a right turn is allowed and a motorist turns in front of them, of course there's plenty the cyclist could have done better. Do you really think it's dumb of a motorist to not try and drive in a bike lane to make their right turn? How often are motorists presented with traffic lanes that are too narrow for them to drive in aside from bike lanes? How consistent are laws from state to state regarding bike lane usage by motor vehicles? I know DE doesn't even address bike lanes in the vehicle code and I don't think MD does either (could be wrong though).
sbhikes
06-29-07, 07:48 AM
1 - Of course not, why cross a white line and drive partially in a lane that is too narrow to fit in, a lane that most cyclists get all uptight about when a motorist otherwise gets near, let alone enters. This problem should be fixed not thru training, but by changing the confusing paint on the road and varied laws across the US and mixed messages about bike lanes.
2 - Why? The only possible (but not certain depending how close to SL the cyclist is riding) illegal behavior is speeding. Most motorists find it is safer to pass a bit above the SL than to pass for an extended period while not going over. I drive my SUV at the SL and get passed all the time by other vehicles going a bit faster. Why should it be wrong to pass a slower cyclist? Is that a new law you want?
3 - This is driving safety, not cyclist specific. Motorist pass other vehicles of all kinds in dangerous situations - spend a weekend driving rural mountain grade/curve roads in AZ at the SL and you will be passed at dangerous places all the time. I agree that drivers should be educated about this, but not as a cycling specific training
4 - Most motorists know cyclists can use the road legally. Cyclist do it all the time and everyone witnesses this and there are no news stories of cracking down on illegal cycling on the road and never comments in the news that the cyclist was illegally using the road. On the contrary most bike accident stories where I live are about cyclists who get hit when on the sidewalk. The problem is not that motorists don't know the rights and the law, its that they don't want cyclist to have the rights. Put law enforcement witness present and that same motorist will not harass. They know it is wrong.
5 - Basic illegal driving behavior. Nothing to do with cycling specifically. Motorists speed and get away with it. Enforcement helps. Many school zones are heavily enforced where I live and speeding is rarely a problem. It is the one area with zero tollerance to speeding (i.e. not 11mph over allowed as in other areas)
6 - That is an attitude problem. We discussed extensively in a different thread. The 'problem' is that cyclists have rights. The 'solution' is to take them away. Bike lanes and MUPs (both of which I am not in fully against) also help erode those rights.
Al
It's no wonder nothing ever changes. We we always be cut off, passed illegally and unsafely even if we are doing the speed limit in school zones and taking the lane and people will continue to try to get us off the road with intimidation as long as they are never informed of our rights and the basic laws of the road. And that cyclists (who claim to be vehicular cyclists and thus far superior to all the others) will just make excuses for the poor driving and ignorance of motorists instead of wanting to fix it just proves my point. Vehicular cyclists don't even want to try.
2 - Why? The only possible (but not certain depending how close to SL the cyclist is riding) illegal behavior is speeding. Most motorists find it is safer to pass a bit above the SL than to pass for an extended period while not going over. I drive my SUV at the SL and get passed all the time by other vehicles going a bit faster. Why should it be wrong to pass a slower cyclist? Is that a new law you want?
3 - This is driving safety, not cyclist specific. Motorist pass other vehicles of all kinds in dangerous situations - spend a weekend driving rural mountain grade/curve roads in AZ at the SL and you will be passed at dangerous places all the time. I agree that drivers should be educated about this, but not as a cycling specific training
4 - Most motorists know cyclists can use the road legally. Cyclist do it all the time and everyone witnesses this and there are no news stories of cracking down on illegal cycling on the road and never comments in the news that the cyclist was illegally using the road. On the contrary most bike accident stories where I live are about cyclists who get hit when on the sidewalk. The problem is not that motorists don't know the rights and the law, its that they don't want cyclist to have the rights. Put law enforcement witness present and that same motorist will not harass. They know it is wrong.
5 - Basic illegal driving behavior. Nothing to do with cycling specifically. Motorists speed and get away with it. Enforcement helps. Many school zones are heavily enforced where I live and speeding is rarely a problem. It is the one area with zero tollerance to speeding (i.e. not 11mph over allowed as in other areas)
6 - That is an attitude problem. We discussed extensively in a different thread. The 'problem' is that cyclists have rights. The 'solution' is to take them away. Bike lanes and MUPs (both of which I am not in fully against) also help erode those rights.
Al
It's no wonder nothing ever changes. We we always be cut off, passed illegally and unsafely even if we are doing the speed limit in school zones and taking the lane and people will continue to try to get us off the road with intimidation as long as they are never informed of our rights and the basic laws of the road. And that cyclists (who claim to be vehicular cyclists and thus far superior to all the others) will just make excuses for the poor driving and ignorance of motorists instead of wanting to fix it just proves my point. Vehicular cyclists don't even want to try.
sggoodri
06-29-07, 07:59 AM
Motorists need more education. They simply do not understand. And with 4000lbs of metal to use to enforce their self-righteous ignorance upon you, I believe it is in our best interest to inform them.
I agree with this, However, we must be concerned about who will be developing the educational message, and what it contains.
If the people developing the educational message are themselves ignorant about proper cycling in traffic, or do not accept the idea that cyclists have full rights to the roadway, then the message they send to motorists will either be counter-productive or ineffective. This is the status quo. For example, here in NC, the NCDOT's own bicycle and pedestrian division contracted out development of a guidebook on North Carolina's bicycle laws and distributed it to police. Unfortunately, the guidebook implies that a cyclist who operates where motorists cannot pass immediately, without delay, is operating unlawfully. Since this publication, we've had reports of local cyclists being stopped by police for "impeding traffic." Other government organizations have published very different interpretetations of identical laws, providing emphatic support of a cyclist's right to use an entire travel lane, with or without qualifications such as lane width. These authors obviously have a better understanding of vehicular cycling.
It's also possible for motorist education to backfire if it doesn't apply appropriate responsibility to the cyclist. If motorists are admonished for failing to yield to cyclists who are crossing mid-block unpredictably, running red lights, passing right-turning traffic on the right, riding against traffic or at night without lights, and so forth - the most common causes of collisions - motorists will dismiss the message of sharing the road.
We need to educate the educators, first, by teaching them vehicular cycling.
I agree with this, However, we must be concerned about who will be developing the educational message, and what it contains.
If the people developing the educational message are themselves ignorant about proper cycling in traffic, or do not accept the idea that cyclists have full rights to the roadway, then the message they send to motorists will either be counter-productive or ineffective. This is the status quo. For example, here in NC, the NCDOT's own bicycle and pedestrian division contracted out development of a guidebook on North Carolina's bicycle laws and distributed it to police. Unfortunately, the guidebook implies that a cyclist who operates where motorists cannot pass immediately, without delay, is operating unlawfully. Since this publication, we've had reports of local cyclists being stopped by police for "impeding traffic." Other government organizations have published very different interpretetations of identical laws, providing emphatic support of a cyclist's right to use an entire travel lane, with or without qualifications such as lane width. These authors obviously have a better understanding of vehicular cycling.
It's also possible for motorist education to backfire if it doesn't apply appropriate responsibility to the cyclist. If motorists are admonished for failing to yield to cyclists who are crossing mid-block unpredictably, running red lights, passing right-turning traffic on the right, riding against traffic or at night without lights, and so forth - the most common causes of collisions - motorists will dismiss the message of sharing the road.
We need to educate the educators, first, by teaching them vehicular cycling.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 08:09 AM
It's no wonder nothing ever changes. We we always be cut off, passed illegally and unsafely even if we are doing the speed limit in school zones and taking the lane and people will continue to try to get us off the road with intimidation as long as they are never informed of our rights and the basic laws of the road. And that cyclists (who claim to be vehicular cyclists and thus far superior to all the others) will just make excuses for the poor driving and ignorance of motorists instead of wanting to fix it just proves my point. Vehicular cyclists don't even want to try.
You missed the point: Training and enforcement of existing laws applicable to all drivers can improve the safety of driving for all.
All drivers who are not pushing or exceeding the speed and road limits are cut off and passed by agressive drivers. Did you not read response to #3?
I do support driver education and more importantly enforcement to help with this. Where have I said I don't want to try?
What excuses have I made?
(and where have I ever claimed to be superior?)
To your credit I actually wonder how much you have driven a motor vehicle? Or perhaps when you motor you don't obey the laws and therefore do not regularly encounter such agressive behavior. Hmmm... pehaps this makes sense as those who drive worst and with the least care are often the ones who think cycling with motorists is so risky.
Al
You missed the point: Training and enforcement of existing laws applicable to all drivers can improve the safety of driving for all.
All drivers who are not pushing or exceeding the speed and road limits are cut off and passed by agressive drivers. Did you not read response to #3?
I do support driver education and more importantly enforcement to help with this. Where have I said I don't want to try?
What excuses have I made?
(and where have I ever claimed to be superior?)
To your credit I actually wonder how much you have driven a motor vehicle? Or perhaps when you motor you don't obey the laws and therefore do not regularly encounter such agressive behavior. Hmmm... pehaps this makes sense as those who drive worst and with the least care are often the ones who think cycling with motorists is so risky.
Al
genec
06-29-07, 08:21 AM
Your own question states quite clearly the degree to which you suffer from your ideology. Where have you seen that vehicular cyclists oppose motorist education? You surely have never seen that from me.
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
Frankly, a great deal of the discussion on these lists is just another demonstration of the great need for better cyclist behavior.
But could it not also be true that the behaviour of cyclists is due to pressure from motorists... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you attempt to ride in the street and are harassed by big metal objects flying at you making terrifying noises, there is a good chance you are going to shy away from that negative experience.
All you and others have offered in response to honking or yelling from motorists is "ignore it."
Couple that honking and yelling with the childhood lessons of "stay out of the street" and "watch out for cars" and one can see why many cyclists try to do just that.
Improve motorist behaviour to include the acceptance of cyclists on the road, and you reduce the negative feedback and cyclists will feel comfortable riding in the street.
What you have seen is the argument that since the traffic behavior of cyclists is so much inferior to the traffic behavior of motorists, and since cyclists ought to have the stronger motivation to improve, one will produce more benefit by concentrating on cyclist training than on motorist training as suggested by cyclists.
Frankly, a great deal of the discussion on these lists is just another demonstration of the great need for better cyclist behavior.
But could it not also be true that the behaviour of cyclists is due to pressure from motorists... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you attempt to ride in the street and are harassed by big metal objects flying at you making terrifying noises, there is a good chance you are going to shy away from that negative experience.
All you and others have offered in response to honking or yelling from motorists is "ignore it."
Couple that honking and yelling with the childhood lessons of "stay out of the street" and "watch out for cars" and one can see why many cyclists try to do just that.
Improve motorist behaviour to include the acceptance of cyclists on the road, and you reduce the negative feedback and cyclists will feel comfortable riding in the street.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 08:27 AM
Let me ask again Diane:
You find these issues:
"1) Do not know they are required to merge into the bike lane before turning
2) Do not understand that if a bicycle is in the center of the lane doing close to the speed limit that they should not try to pass
3) Pass bicyclists unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both
4) Believe that cyclists have no rights to the road and thus harass cyclists with dangerous behavior to teach them a lesson
5) Drive 40 mph in school zones in order to pass cyclists going 20
6) Write letters to the editor of the local paper about the "bicycle" problem, which is that there are bicycles on the road who "shouldn't be there."
1 - So what? If this is illegal in most every other state, why is it so terrible if many motorists don't do this in CA?
2 - So what? How is this even a problem for the cyclist? The alternative is to have the motorist follow you for blocks on end in which case you come to the forum complaining about some creep who was watching you.
3 - A safety problem for all drivers. "Pass unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both" Yep, and what are cyclists going to do to fix this? Motorists who may be the victim of a head on collision from an aggresive driver have more too lose than cyclists. Get them on board and maybe you can get some traction to help educate of the dangers.
4 - Where do you get the "and thus"? You claim to "regularly see motorists who" Now you read their mind too? See I don't believe the harrassment comes from lack of knowing rights, it comes from being directly affected by those rights combined with the anti-social behavior that driving can cause.
5 - Speeding is an epidemic problem in the US. And cyclists should tackle this?
6 - Same comments as before.
You find these issues:
"1) Do not know they are required to merge into the bike lane before turning
2) Do not understand that if a bicycle is in the center of the lane doing close to the speed limit that they should not try to pass
3) Pass bicyclists unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both
4) Believe that cyclists have no rights to the road and thus harass cyclists with dangerous behavior to teach them a lesson
5) Drive 40 mph in school zones in order to pass cyclists going 20
6) Write letters to the editor of the local paper about the "bicycle" problem, which is that there are bicycles on the road who "shouldn't be there."
1 - So what? If this is illegal in most every other state, why is it so terrible if many motorists don't do this in CA?
2 - So what? How is this even a problem for the cyclist? The alternative is to have the motorist follow you for blocks on end in which case you come to the forum complaining about some creep who was watching you.
3 - A safety problem for all drivers. "Pass unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both" Yep, and what are cyclists going to do to fix this? Motorists who may be the victim of a head on collision from an aggresive driver have more too lose than cyclists. Get them on board and maybe you can get some traction to help educate of the dangers.
4 - Where do you get the "and thus"? You claim to "regularly see motorists who" Now you read their mind too? See I don't believe the harrassment comes from lack of knowing rights, it comes from being directly affected by those rights combined with the anti-social behavior that driving can cause.
5 - Speeding is an epidemic problem in the US. And cyclists should tackle this?
6 - Same comments as before.
genec
06-29-07, 08:42 AM
1 - Of course not, why cross a white line and drive partially in a lane that is too narrow to fit in, a lane that most cyclists get all uptight about when a motorist otherwise gets near, let alone enters. This problem should be fixed not thru training, but by changing the confusing paint on the road and varied laws across the US and mixed messages about bike lanes.
OK bike lanes are confusing... let's leave that one for now.
2 - Why? The only possible (but not certain depending how close to SL the cyclist is riding) illegal behavior is speeding. Most motorists find it is safer to pass a bit above the SL than to pass for an extended period while not going over. I drive my SUV at the SL and get passed all the time by other vehicles going a bit faster. Why should it be wrong to pass a slower cyclist? Is that a new law you want?
Motorists speed... they tend to drive over the speed limit any time an opportunity arises, motorists tend to also close the gap... something that really doesn't make sense from a safety standpoint, but seems to be the norm these days. Motorists often also are somehow compelled to get around bikes... no matter what the situation. (the notion)
3 - This is driving safety, not cyclist specific. Motorist pass other vehicles of all kinds in dangerous situations - spend a weekend driving rural mountain grade/curve roads in AZ at the SL and you will be passed at dangerous places all the time. I agree that drivers should be educated about this, but not as a cycling specific training
OK, a clear need for education.
4 - Most motorists know cyclists can use the road legally. Cyclist do it all the time and everyone witnesses this and there are no news stories of cracking down on illegal cycling on the road and never comments in the news that the cyclist was illegally using the road. On the contrary most bike accident stories where I live are about cyclists who get hit when on the sidewalk. The problem is not that motorists don't know the rights and the law, its that they don't want cyclist to have the rights. Put law enforcement witness present and that same motorist will not harass. They know it is wrong.
This I will debate. Motorists know harassment is wrong... and that is what they will not do if LE is present; but as far as motorists understanding that cyclists have rights to the road... no, most motorists do not know this.
I challenge you to talk to motorists that do not know you as a cyclist. Have a candid conversation with some folks at some public situation where you can converse about anything. Talk about the price of gas, ask what they think about bikes on the road. Keep the conversation open, don't lead it, and listen. You will be quite surprised to hear the misconceptions held by most motorists. It tends to be somewhat age dependent... older folks tend to be quite negative about cyclists... younger college age folks are a bit more accepting, but they usually don't know that cyclists have RIGHTS to use the road.
Oddly enough, I had this same conversation with my father just a few months ago. He knows I am a cyclist; I toured to his home some 20 years ago across the US. We happened to be talking about that, and he expressed surprise that I was able to do that... this many years later.
He had no idea that cyclists have rights to the road... he, like many other motorists, feel that cyclists are "borrowing" the road that motorists pay for through taxes and fees.
Really go out and have that conversation.... find out what motorists really think.
5 - Basic illegal driving behavior. Nothing to do with cycling specifically. Motorists speed and get away with it. Enforcement helps. Many school zones are heavily enforced where I live and speeding is rarely a problem. It is the one area with zero tollerance to speeding (i.e. not 11mph over allowed as in other areas)
6 - That is an attitude problem. We discussed extensively in a different thread. The 'problem' is that cyclists have rights. The 'solution' is to take them away. Bike lanes and MUPs (both of which I am not in fully against) also help erode those rights.
Al
# 6 stems from what I mentioned in #4. Motorists have misconceptions about the ownership of the road based on fees they pay and entitlements they feel they are owed due to the "price of admission," the cost of their cars. The misconceptions are expressed in opinion pieces in the paper (remember the AZ hiway patrolman... who should have known better) and these misconceptions are reinforced by shock radio.
Most motorists do not know that cyclists have the same rights to the road as any other vehicle driver and this forms the basis for motorists believing that bikes don't belong on the road.
I would be willing to bet many utility cyclists don't know they have rights to the road either... but it is much harder to have a candid conversation with them.
But really try that conversation I mentioned above, and come back and tell us what you find out.
OK bike lanes are confusing... let's leave that one for now.
2 - Why? The only possible (but not certain depending how close to SL the cyclist is riding) illegal behavior is speeding. Most motorists find it is safer to pass a bit above the SL than to pass for an extended period while not going over. I drive my SUV at the SL and get passed all the time by other vehicles going a bit faster. Why should it be wrong to pass a slower cyclist? Is that a new law you want?
Motorists speed... they tend to drive over the speed limit any time an opportunity arises, motorists tend to also close the gap... something that really doesn't make sense from a safety standpoint, but seems to be the norm these days. Motorists often also are somehow compelled to get around bikes... no matter what the situation. (the notion)
3 - This is driving safety, not cyclist specific. Motorist pass other vehicles of all kinds in dangerous situations - spend a weekend driving rural mountain grade/curve roads in AZ at the SL and you will be passed at dangerous places all the time. I agree that drivers should be educated about this, but not as a cycling specific training
OK, a clear need for education.
4 - Most motorists know cyclists can use the road legally. Cyclist do it all the time and everyone witnesses this and there are no news stories of cracking down on illegal cycling on the road and never comments in the news that the cyclist was illegally using the road. On the contrary most bike accident stories where I live are about cyclists who get hit when on the sidewalk. The problem is not that motorists don't know the rights and the law, its that they don't want cyclist to have the rights. Put law enforcement witness present and that same motorist will not harass. They know it is wrong.
This I will debate. Motorists know harassment is wrong... and that is what they will not do if LE is present; but as far as motorists understanding that cyclists have rights to the road... no, most motorists do not know this.
I challenge you to talk to motorists that do not know you as a cyclist. Have a candid conversation with some folks at some public situation where you can converse about anything. Talk about the price of gas, ask what they think about bikes on the road. Keep the conversation open, don't lead it, and listen. You will be quite surprised to hear the misconceptions held by most motorists. It tends to be somewhat age dependent... older folks tend to be quite negative about cyclists... younger college age folks are a bit more accepting, but they usually don't know that cyclists have RIGHTS to use the road.
Oddly enough, I had this same conversation with my father just a few months ago. He knows I am a cyclist; I toured to his home some 20 years ago across the US. We happened to be talking about that, and he expressed surprise that I was able to do that... this many years later.
He had no idea that cyclists have rights to the road... he, like many other motorists, feel that cyclists are "borrowing" the road that motorists pay for through taxes and fees.
Really go out and have that conversation.... find out what motorists really think.
5 - Basic illegal driving behavior. Nothing to do with cycling specifically. Motorists speed and get away with it. Enforcement helps. Many school zones are heavily enforced where I live and speeding is rarely a problem. It is the one area with zero tollerance to speeding (i.e. not 11mph over allowed as in other areas)
6 - That is an attitude problem. We discussed extensively in a different thread. The 'problem' is that cyclists have rights. The 'solution' is to take them away. Bike lanes and MUPs (both of which I am not in fully against) also help erode those rights.
Al
# 6 stems from what I mentioned in #4. Motorists have misconceptions about the ownership of the road based on fees they pay and entitlements they feel they are owed due to the "price of admission," the cost of their cars. The misconceptions are expressed in opinion pieces in the paper (remember the AZ hiway patrolman... who should have known better) and these misconceptions are reinforced by shock radio.
Most motorists do not know that cyclists have the same rights to the road as any other vehicle driver and this forms the basis for motorists believing that bikes don't belong on the road.
I would be willing to bet many utility cyclists don't know they have rights to the road either... but it is much harder to have a candid conversation with them.
But really try that conversation I mentioned above, and come back and tell us what you find out.
genec
06-29-07, 08:49 AM
When a cyclist is going straight from the edge of the road where a right turn is allowed and a motorist turns in front of them, of course there's plenty the cyclist could have done better. Do you really think it's dumb of a motorist to not try and drive in a bike lane to make their right turn? How often are motorists presented with traffic lanes that are too narrow for them to drive in aside from bike lanes? How consistent are laws from state to state regarding bike lane usage by motor vehicles? I know DE doesn't even address bike lanes in the vehicle code and I don't think MD does either (could be wrong though).
OK so what causes motorists to go around cyclists clearly in the middle of the lane, to then try to turn right in front of the cyclist. Or what causes motorists to turn from a middle lane across a cyclist in a right lane? Or to make illegal turns from straight through lanes next to ROTL; the latter being done to avoid a cyclist in the ROTL. Those behaviours have nothing to do with a cyclist acting poorly... they are decisions motorists make inspite of cyclists NOT hugging the curb.
OK so what causes motorists to go around cyclists clearly in the middle of the lane, to then try to turn right in front of the cyclist. Or what causes motorists to turn from a middle lane across a cyclist in a right lane? Or to make illegal turns from straight through lanes next to ROTL; the latter being done to avoid a cyclist in the ROTL. Those behaviours have nothing to do with a cyclist acting poorly... they are decisions motorists make inspite of cyclists NOT hugging the curb.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 08:51 AM
Gene- I've had that conversation many times. Of the dozen of conversations I've had (non-cyclists, even cyclist dislikers) everyone knows that cyclist can legally use the road - have a right to. A few misunderstood that if a bike lane is present cyclists must use it.
But the most common 'anti-bike' sentiment was 'Just cause its right and legal, doesn't mean you should' - and then they may spout off many other examples of things that we in the US have a right to do, but are frowned upon if one exercises those rights or stays within the law. They range from national hot button issues to tedium like how high ones weeds can grow in ones front yard. Yesterdays example was weeds no higher than 12", but if I did keep my yard filled with weeds just under 12", the city couldn't tell me otherwise, but my neighbors would still be upset with me.
Al
But the most common 'anti-bike' sentiment was 'Just cause its right and legal, doesn't mean you should' - and then they may spout off many other examples of things that we in the US have a right to do, but are frowned upon if one exercises those rights or stays within the law. They range from national hot button issues to tedium like how high ones weeds can grow in ones front yard. Yesterdays example was weeds no higher than 12", but if I did keep my yard filled with weeds just under 12", the city couldn't tell me otherwise, but my neighbors would still be upset with me.
Al
genec
06-29-07, 08:53 AM
Hmmm... pehaps this makes sense as those who drive worst and with the least care are often the ones who think cycling with motorists is so risky.
Quite true possibly... motorists may be aware of how poorly they control their car and realize... "Hey, no way I want to be out there with the likes of me driving."
While this may be true, I doubt most drivers feel they drive poorly.
Quite true possibly... motorists may be aware of how poorly they control their car and realize... "Hey, no way I want to be out there with the likes of me driving."
While this may be true, I doubt most drivers feel they drive poorly.
genec
06-29-07, 08:57 AM
Gene- I've had that conversation many times. Of the dozen of conversations I've had (non-cyclists, even cyclist dislikers) everyone knows that cyclist can legally use the road - have a right to. A few misunderstood that if a bike lane is present cyclists must use it.
But the most common 'anti-bike' sentiment was 'Just cause its right and legal, doesn't mean you should' - and then they may spout off many other examples of things that we in the US have a right to do, but are frowned upon if one exercises those rights or stays within the law. They range from national hot button issues to tedium like how high ones weeds can grow in ones front yard. Yesterdays example was weeds no higher than 12", but if I did keep my yard filled with weeds just under 12", the city couldn't tell me otherwise, but my neighbors would still be upset with me.
Al
Interesting... I find most folks are surprised to find that cyclists have actual rights to use the road.
I do often get that response: 'Just cause its right and legal, doesn't mean you should' when and if I inform them of cyclists rights.
And perish the thought of having to slow down... heaven forbid.
But the most common 'anti-bike' sentiment was 'Just cause its right and legal, doesn't mean you should' - and then they may spout off many other examples of things that we in the US have a right to do, but are frowned upon if one exercises those rights or stays within the law. They range from national hot button issues to tedium like how high ones weeds can grow in ones front yard. Yesterdays example was weeds no higher than 12", but if I did keep my yard filled with weeds just under 12", the city couldn't tell me otherwise, but my neighbors would still be upset with me.
Al
Interesting... I find most folks are surprised to find that cyclists have actual rights to use the road.
I do often get that response: 'Just cause its right and legal, doesn't mean you should' when and if I inform them of cyclists rights.
And perish the thought of having to slow down... heaven forbid.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 09:04 AM
(remember the AZ hiway patrolman... who should have known better)
Yep. He fits in the most common category of folks who know what is legal, but still don't think it is [appropriate], Here it is again.
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#oct8
Another interesting letter in that chain is this one:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#dec24
Al
Yep. He fits in the most common category of folks who know what is legal, but still don't think it is [appropriate], Here it is again.
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#oct8
Another interesting letter in that chain is this one:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#dec24
Al
genec
06-29-07, 09:08 AM
Yep. He fits in the most common category of folks who know what is legal, but still don't think its right, Here it is again.
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#oct8
Another interesting letter in that chain is this one:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#dec24
Al
Knowing it is legal is not the same as "having the same rights."
The folks I talk to know it is not an illegal activity (as you mentioned earlier), but they don't know that cyclists have actual rights to the road.
And yes, there is a lot of "still don't think its right" expressed. And a lot of "but we paid for the road... " :D
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#oct8
Another interesting letter in that chain is this one:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#dec24
Al
Knowing it is legal is not the same as "having the same rights."
The folks I talk to know it is not an illegal activity (as you mentioned earlier), but they don't know that cyclists have actual rights to the road.
And yes, there is a lot of "still don't think its right" expressed. And a lot of "but we paid for the road... " :D
The Human Car
06-29-07, 09:12 AM
When a cyclist is going straight from the edge of the road where a right turn is allowed and a motorist turns in front of them, of course there's plenty the cyclist could have done better. Do you really think it's dumb of a motorist to not try and drive in a bike lane to make their right turn? How often are motorists presented with traffic lanes that are too narrow for them to drive in aside from bike lanes? How consistent are laws from state to state regarding bike lane usage by motor vehicles? I know DE doesn't even address bike lanes in the vehicle code and I don't think MD does either (could be wrong though).
From what I have looked into on this subject it seems that there are two schools of thought one that motorist should execute a right turn from the right most portion of the travelway (not in the bike lane or shoulder) and the other from the rightmost portion of the roadway (in the bike lane or shoulder.) I am really not that sure where MD stands on this issue as I heard arguments supporting both point of views but I am leaning toward that MD law does not support driving on shoulders or bike lanes (even to execute turns from.) But it does seem clear to me that at least in MD law you cannot pass (even a cyclist in a bike lane) 100 ft before an intersection where you are going to turn. So my POV is I really don’t care all that much where a motorist turns from as long as they don’t cross our path and I would love to see more attention on this aspect of the law as well as toughening up the penalties.
Consistency of laws is a real joke especially when it comes to bikes. I really would love to see more states adopt the UVC so we can nationally focus our energy on that rather then every state having to reinvent the wheel in correcting the laws.
From what I have looked into on this subject it seems that there are two schools of thought one that motorist should execute a right turn from the right most portion of the travelway (not in the bike lane or shoulder) and the other from the rightmost portion of the roadway (in the bike lane or shoulder.) I am really not that sure where MD stands on this issue as I heard arguments supporting both point of views but I am leaning toward that MD law does not support driving on shoulders or bike lanes (even to execute turns from.) But it does seem clear to me that at least in MD law you cannot pass (even a cyclist in a bike lane) 100 ft before an intersection where you are going to turn. So my POV is I really don’t care all that much where a motorist turns from as long as they don’t cross our path and I would love to see more attention on this aspect of the law as well as toughening up the penalties.
Consistency of laws is a real joke especially when it comes to bikes. I really would love to see more states adopt the UVC so we can nationally focus our energy on that rather then every state having to reinvent the wheel in correcting the laws.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 09:21 AM
Knowing it is legal is not the same as "having the same rights."
The folks I talk to know it is not an illegal activity (as you mentioned earlier), but they don't know that cyclists have actual rights to the road.
And yes, there is a lot of "still don't think its right" expressed. And a lot of "but we paid for the road... " :D
The discussions I've had acknowledge the right, not only the legality, as in: "Well I know you should ride on the street, but its a real pain in the butt for me. I hate it."
When I commented above about McCarthy's letter - I meant 'right' as in 'appropriate', not as in 'rights'
How bout this quote from the chain of letters:
"You've got a bike lane, use it. Arguing about your rights as a vehicle while playing chicken with a 4,000-pound car is like taking a knife to a gunfight."
Al
The folks I talk to know it is not an illegal activity (as you mentioned earlier), but they don't know that cyclists have actual rights to the road.
And yes, there is a lot of "still don't think its right" expressed. And a lot of "but we paid for the road... " :D
The discussions I've had acknowledge the right, not only the legality, as in: "Well I know you should ride on the street, but its a real pain in the butt for me. I hate it."
When I commented above about McCarthy's letter - I meant 'right' as in 'appropriate', not as in 'rights'
How bout this quote from the chain of letters:
"You've got a bike lane, use it. Arguing about your rights as a vehicle while playing chicken with a 4,000-pound car is like taking a knife to a gunfight."
Al
genec
06-29-07, 09:32 AM
How bout this quote from the chain of letters:
"You've got a bike lane, use it. Arguing about your rights as a vehicle while playing chicken with a 4,000-pound car is like taking a knife to a gunfight."
Al
Yeah that's the "entitlement" aspect... and coupled with a sense of "competition."
It's transportation folks... not a race. Share the road. :rolleyes:
"You've got a bike lane, use it. Arguing about your rights as a vehicle while playing chicken with a 4,000-pound car is like taking a knife to a gunfight."
Al
Yeah that's the "entitlement" aspect... and coupled with a sense of "competition."
It's transportation folks... not a race. Share the road. :rolleyes:
noisebeam
06-29-07, 09:45 AM
If there was some magic wand that could be waved that would make all road users respect each other and treat each other like humans should (which will be better than they do on average even away from the road) I'd be all for it.
If there was a way to eliminate all harrassment of cyclists, even if it involved education, I'd fully support it. I think it may be possible to have a very small impact with some education, but not an impact that would affect safety or be perceptible to cyclists.
There will always be motorists (and humans) who harass others, especially others they can get away with harassing.
This quote from the chain of letters sums it up: "Preaching the law and righteousness of the cause will not change the fact that there are those that hate cyclists" (http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#jan28)
As to cycling specific motorist education beyond what is already in the drivers handbook or location specific sharing the road signs. Sure go ahead. I am not against it, just don't support it as a priority. I think there are better ways to make cycling safer and more enjoyable for all than trying to readjust the attitudes of a few fools.
My grouching and negativity here are not so much to stop efforts at education, but to get folks who support it to think hard about how to best achieve the results they want.
Al
If there was a way to eliminate all harrassment of cyclists, even if it involved education, I'd fully support it. I think it may be possible to have a very small impact with some education, but not an impact that would affect safety or be perceptible to cyclists.
There will always be motorists (and humans) who harass others, especially others they can get away with harassing.
This quote from the chain of letters sums it up: "Preaching the law and righteousness of the cause will not change the fact that there are those that hate cyclists" (http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html#jan28)
As to cycling specific motorist education beyond what is already in the drivers handbook or location specific sharing the road signs. Sure go ahead. I am not against it, just don't support it as a priority. I think there are better ways to make cycling safer and more enjoyable for all than trying to readjust the attitudes of a few fools.
My grouching and negativity here are not so much to stop efforts at education, but to get folks who support it to think hard about how to best achieve the results they want.
Al
genec
06-29-07, 10:40 AM
As to cycling specific motorist education beyond what is already in the drivers handbook or location specific sharing the road signs. Sure go ahead. I am not against it, just don't support it as a priority. I think there are better ways to make cycling safer and more enjoyable for all than trying to readjust the attitudes of a few fools.
My grouching and negativity here are not so much to stop efforts at education, but to get folks who support it to think hard about how to best achieve the results they want.
Al
Here's the thing... I am not for "cycling specific motorist education." I am for better drivers. I think our whole driver education system is flawed... it is based on the minimum amount that it takes to get someone on the road... and that is where I think it is flawed... those minimums set a pretty darn low bar for a lifelong potentially dangerous activity.
I think we can raise the bar for motorist education, period. Along the way we should include lessons on dealing with other users of the road.
My grouching and negativity here are not so much to stop efforts at education, but to get folks who support it to think hard about how to best achieve the results they want.
Al
Here's the thing... I am not for "cycling specific motorist education." I am for better drivers. I think our whole driver education system is flawed... it is based on the minimum amount that it takes to get someone on the road... and that is where I think it is flawed... those minimums set a pretty darn low bar for a lifelong potentially dangerous activity.
I think we can raise the bar for motorist education, period. Along the way we should include lessons on dealing with other users of the road.
sbhikes
06-29-07, 01:28 PM
To your credit I actually wonder how much you have driven a motor vehicle? Or perhaps when you motor you don't obey the laws and therefore do not regularly encounter such agressive behavior. Hmmm... pehaps this makes sense as those who drive worst and with the least care are often the ones who think cycling with motorists is so risky.
Al
I have always owned crappy under-powered, 4-cylinder cars and so am no stranger to motorist harassment of other motorists. It's part of the reason I decided to bicycle commute. I get no motorist harassment in the bike lane and there is no congestion there, either. But you all claim that bike lanes are so awful and that we should oppose them, which just puts us where we will be harassed again, and even worse than my 4-cylinder slow-pokes. (One of which I actually used to have a sign in the back window that said "can't go faster please go around". Funny how much harassment that actually stopped.)
Al
I have always owned crappy under-powered, 4-cylinder cars and so am no stranger to motorist harassment of other motorists. It's part of the reason I decided to bicycle commute. I get no motorist harassment in the bike lane and there is no congestion there, either. But you all claim that bike lanes are so awful and that we should oppose them, which just puts us where we will be harassed again, and even worse than my 4-cylinder slow-pokes. (One of which I actually used to have a sign in the back window that said "can't go faster please go around". Funny how much harassment that actually stopped.)
sggoodri
06-29-07, 01:34 PM
I get no motorist harassment in the bike lane and there is no congestion there, either. But you all claim that bike lanes are so awful and that we should oppose them, which just puts us where we will be harassed again, and even worse than my 4-cylinder slow-pokes.
If the bike lane stripe were removed from the same width of asphalt you use where you are not harassed, why would the lack of the stripe cause you to be harassed?
I've never been harassed in a road with a lane wider than 12 feet. I've never had an uncomfortably close pass in a lane wider than 14 feet. The minimum width recommended in NC for creating a travel lane next to a bike lane is 16 feet total. I've used lots of 16' lanes and prefer them over other road designs.
If the bike lane stripe were removed from the same width of asphalt you use where you are not harassed, why would the lack of the stripe cause you to be harassed?
I've never been harassed in a road with a lane wider than 12 feet. I've never had an uncomfortably close pass in a lane wider than 14 feet. The minimum width recommended in NC for creating a travel lane next to a bike lane is 16 feet total. I've used lots of 16' lanes and prefer them over other road designs.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 01:37 PM
I get no motorist harassment in the bike lane and there is no congestion there, either. But you all claim that bike lanes are so awful and that we should oppose them, which just puts us where we will be harassed again
Diane - You know better (as in we have discussed over (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4694423&postcount=103)and over (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3731371&postcount=232)again in the past) than to perpetuate the confusion between not having a bike lane stripe (a WOL) vs. removing the bike lane width resulting in a NOL.
Anyway, for the record I get more harassment on roads with bike lanes than on road with wide outside lanes. In fact I've never been harrassed while riding on a road with a WOL.
Al
Diane - You know better (as in we have discussed over (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4694423&postcount=103)and over (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3731371&postcount=232)again in the past) than to perpetuate the confusion between not having a bike lane stripe (a WOL) vs. removing the bike lane width resulting in a NOL.
Anyway, for the record I get more harassment on roads with bike lanes than on road with wide outside lanes. In fact I've never been harrassed while riding on a road with a WOL.
Al
sbhikes
06-29-07, 01:42 PM
Let me ask again Diane:
You find these issues:
"1) Do not know they are required to merge into the bike lane before turning
2) Do not understand that if a bicycle is in the center of the lane doing close to the speed limit that they should not try to pass
3) Pass bicyclists unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both
4) Believe that cyclists have no rights to the road and thus harass cyclists with dangerous behavior to teach them a lesson
5) Drive 40 mph in school zones in order to pass cyclists going 20
6) Write letters to the editor of the local paper about the "bicycle" problem, which is that there are bicycles on the road who "shouldn't be there."
1 - So what? If this is illegal in most every other state, why is it so terrible if many motorists don't do this in CA?
2 - So what? How is this even a problem for the cyclist? The alternative is to have the motorist follow you for blocks on end in which case you come to the forum complaining about some creep who was watching you.
3 - A safety problem for all drivers. "Pass unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both" Yep, and what are cyclists going to do to fix this? Motorists who may be the victim of a head on collision from an aggresive driver have more too lose than cyclists. Get them on board and maybe you can get some traction to help educate of the dangers.
4 - Where do you get the "and thus"? You claim to "regularly see motorists who" Now you read their mind too? See I don't believe the harrassment comes from lack of knowing rights, it comes from being directly affected by those rights combined with the anti-social behavior that driving can cause.
5 - Speeding is an epidemic problem in the US. And cyclists should tackle this?
6 - Same comments as before.
About merging into the bike lane: I have understood the bike lane merging thing since I was 16 years old and started learning to drive. It is not difficult to understand. Why is it so hard for people to RTFM when they get a new license? I can understand if I see Arizona plates or something, but these are fellow Californians and should know better.
About the not understanding what a bicycle taking the lane means: It's a source of harassment and seems to make cyclists believe they must pass dangerously even if it makes no sense from a safety standpoint to do so. We take the lane to prevent them but they do it anyway. Why bother taking the lane if it only causes an overall decrease in safety?
About the reckless passing: Motorists believe we force them to do that. They do not understand they have a choice. The only way to teach people they have a choice is to teach the people who are confused about their choices -- which in this case are the motorists.
About speeding in the school zone: Cyclists need to tackle speeding in my scenario because it is a symptom of them not understanding that if I'm in the center of the lane doing 20 mph that means I'm not to be passed. They believe they are being forced to speed dangerously in school zones or other places where my cycling speed is at the level where I'm legitimate to take the lane. They need to learn what they really are or are not being forced to do.
About school zones and speeding in general: Since we should encourage students to ride to school, drivers should be safer about their speed. Especially around schools, but everywhere. Otherwise, without young people cycling, they grow up believe driving is the only way to get around and cyclists are just nut-jobs with tight pants and death wishes. Safe driving conditions are a prerequisite to safe cycling conditions.
But vehicular cyclists don't care about that, do they? All they care about is bragging about how macho they are. Ooohh! Look at me going 35 in the middle of a narrow lane and getting 17 second honks that I scoff at as they roll meaninglessly off my back. Yep (grab crotch) that's serious cycling. That's competent cycling. That's Vehicular Cycling(TM).
Sorry, but that's just stupid cycling.
You find these issues:
"1) Do not know they are required to merge into the bike lane before turning
2) Do not understand that if a bicycle is in the center of the lane doing close to the speed limit that they should not try to pass
3) Pass bicyclists unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both
4) Believe that cyclists have no rights to the road and thus harass cyclists with dangerous behavior to teach them a lesson
5) Drive 40 mph in school zones in order to pass cyclists going 20
6) Write letters to the editor of the local paper about the "bicycle" problem, which is that there are bicycles on the road who "shouldn't be there."
1 - So what? If this is illegal in most every other state, why is it so terrible if many motorists don't do this in CA?
2 - So what? How is this even a problem for the cyclist? The alternative is to have the motorist follow you for blocks on end in which case you come to the forum complaining about some creep who was watching you.
3 - A safety problem for all drivers. "Pass unsafely at any opportunity no matter how dire, including blind corners, crests of hills or both" Yep, and what are cyclists going to do to fix this? Motorists who may be the victim of a head on collision from an aggresive driver have more too lose than cyclists. Get them on board and maybe you can get some traction to help educate of the dangers.
4 - Where do you get the "and thus"? You claim to "regularly see motorists who" Now you read their mind too? See I don't believe the harrassment comes from lack of knowing rights, it comes from being directly affected by those rights combined with the anti-social behavior that driving can cause.
5 - Speeding is an epidemic problem in the US. And cyclists should tackle this?
6 - Same comments as before.
About merging into the bike lane: I have understood the bike lane merging thing since I was 16 years old and started learning to drive. It is not difficult to understand. Why is it so hard for people to RTFM when they get a new license? I can understand if I see Arizona plates or something, but these are fellow Californians and should know better.
About the not understanding what a bicycle taking the lane means: It's a source of harassment and seems to make cyclists believe they must pass dangerously even if it makes no sense from a safety standpoint to do so. We take the lane to prevent them but they do it anyway. Why bother taking the lane if it only causes an overall decrease in safety?
About the reckless passing: Motorists believe we force them to do that. They do not understand they have a choice. The only way to teach people they have a choice is to teach the people who are confused about their choices -- which in this case are the motorists.
About speeding in the school zone: Cyclists need to tackle speeding in my scenario because it is a symptom of them not understanding that if I'm in the center of the lane doing 20 mph that means I'm not to be passed. They believe they are being forced to speed dangerously in school zones or other places where my cycling speed is at the level where I'm legitimate to take the lane. They need to learn what they really are or are not being forced to do.
About school zones and speeding in general: Since we should encourage students to ride to school, drivers should be safer about their speed. Especially around schools, but everywhere. Otherwise, without young people cycling, they grow up believe driving is the only way to get around and cyclists are just nut-jobs with tight pants and death wishes. Safe driving conditions are a prerequisite to safe cycling conditions.
But vehicular cyclists don't care about that, do they? All they care about is bragging about how macho they are. Ooohh! Look at me going 35 in the middle of a narrow lane and getting 17 second honks that I scoff at as they roll meaninglessly off my back. Yep (grab crotch) that's serious cycling. That's competent cycling. That's Vehicular Cycling(TM).
Sorry, but that's just stupid cycling.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 01:50 PM
About the not understanding what a bicycle taking the lane means: It's a source of harassment and seems to make cyclists believe they must pass dangerously even if it makes no sense from a safety standpoint to do so. We take the lane to prevent them but they do it anyway. Why bother taking the lane if it only causes an overall decrease in safety?
Why is what was described in example #2 (motorist passing lane taking cyclist who was traveling under SL) now described as harrasment and dangerous? What new information are you adding/imagining to the scenario?
Why do you think that 'taking the lane' is done to prevent passing? It is not.
Al
Why is what was described in example #2 (motorist passing lane taking cyclist who was traveling under SL) now described as harrasment and dangerous? What new information are you adding/imagining to the scenario?
Why do you think that 'taking the lane' is done to prevent passing? It is not.
Al
genec
06-29-07, 01:57 PM
Why is what was described in example #2 (motorist passing lane taking cyclist who was traveling under SL) now described as harrasment and dangerous? What new information are you adding/imagining to the scenario?
Why do you think that 'taking the lane' is done to prevent passing? It is not.
Al
Here's a complex question... if she was already doing the speed limit in the lane... and the motorist sped up to pass her... why did the motorist need to pass her in the first place?
She was moving at the speed limit, so what was the motorist going to do... violate the law and go faster? What was the motivation behind the need to pass in the first place?
I understand speeding up to pass... but why pass when there is no legitimate reason to? Motorists are often compelled to pass cyclists, for apparently no reason... why?
Why do you think that 'taking the lane' is done to prevent passing? It is not.
Al
Here's a complex question... if she was already doing the speed limit in the lane... and the motorist sped up to pass her... why did the motorist need to pass her in the first place?
She was moving at the speed limit, so what was the motorist going to do... violate the law and go faster? What was the motivation behind the need to pass in the first place?
I understand speeding up to pass... but why pass when there is no legitimate reason to? Motorists are often compelled to pass cyclists, for apparently no reason... why?
noisebeam
06-29-07, 01:57 PM
Safe driving conditions are a prerequisite to safe cycling conditions.
Agreed.
So as a road user why not advocate for safe driving and safe driving conditions? Why muddy the issue by bringing in cyclists and some special needs some think they have? You will get a far more receptive and understanding audience if you are not asking for special treatment for your special hobby or transport choice.
Al
Agreed.
So as a road user why not advocate for safe driving and safe driving conditions? Why muddy the issue by bringing in cyclists and some special needs some think they have? You will get a far more receptive and understanding audience if you are not asking for special treatment for your special hobby or transport choice.
Al
noisebeam
06-29-07, 02:07 PM
Here's a complex question... if she was already doing the speed limit in the lane... and the motorist sped up to pass her... why did the motorist need to pass her in the first place?
She was moving at the speed limit, so what was the motorist going to do... violate the law and go faster? What was the motivation behind the need to pass in the first place?
I understand speeding up to pass... but why pass when there is no legitimate reason to? Motorists are often compelled to pass cyclists, for apparently no reason... why?
Firstly in #2 the cyclist was traveling under the SL, so it may be possible to pass without breaking any law.
A few disconnected but related thoughts:
-While I would not do it, the state of SL compliance and enforcement in the US is such that folks expect to be able to drive somewhat over it, so if possible to safely pass a cyclist (or any vehicle) while going a few mph over the SL, most drivers would do it and law enforcement wouldn't even care.
-It can be safer to pass quickly while traveling a bit over SL, that to pass very slowly while staying just at SL.
-It can be more comfortable for a cyclist to be passed than to be followed for an extended period.
-It can be better to pass a cyclist when one has a safe opportunity to do so, than wait behind them and later be further delayed, such as when SL changes or road grade does (slowing cyclist further)
When I head to hiking destinations on the weekends, I drive the SL on rural single lane roads all the time. I get passed by 90% of other road users. All of them have to speed to do so, all of them had to speed to get behind me in the first place. Should motorists be educated not to do this? As a motorist driving the SL I rather they pass me safely while going over the SL than to sit behind me fuming for miles on end. They shouldn't fume, but can we teach folks to be so patient?
Al
She was moving at the speed limit, so what was the motorist going to do... violate the law and go faster? What was the motivation behind the need to pass in the first place?
I understand speeding up to pass... but why pass when there is no legitimate reason to? Motorists are often compelled to pass cyclists, for apparently no reason... why?
Firstly in #2 the cyclist was traveling under the SL, so it may be possible to pass without breaking any law.
A few disconnected but related thoughts:
-While I would not do it, the state of SL compliance and enforcement in the US is such that folks expect to be able to drive somewhat over it, so if possible to safely pass a cyclist (or any vehicle) while going a few mph over the SL, most drivers would do it and law enforcement wouldn't even care.
-It can be safer to pass quickly while traveling a bit over SL, that to pass very slowly while staying just at SL.
-It can be more comfortable for a cyclist to be passed than to be followed for an extended period.
-It can be better to pass a cyclist when one has a safe opportunity to do so, than wait behind them and later be further delayed, such as when SL changes or road grade does (slowing cyclist further)
When I head to hiking destinations on the weekends, I drive the SL on rural single lane roads all the time. I get passed by 90% of other road users. All of them have to speed to do so, all of them had to speed to get behind me in the first place. Should motorists be educated not to do this? As a motorist driving the SL I rather they pass me safely while going over the SL than to sit behind me fuming for miles on end. They shouldn't fume, but can we teach folks to be so patient?
Al
noisebeam
06-29-07, 02:24 PM
places where my cycling speed is at the level where I'm legitimate to take the lane.
What does speed have to do with legitimizing 'taking the lane'?
I'll ride centerish, but will move over if safe and practical to do so if a faster vehicle is approaching independent of the posted SL and my current speed. My 'job' is not to slow other drivers to a lawful speed (if not needed for my safety). No wonder you get harrassed.
Al
What does speed have to do with legitimizing 'taking the lane'?
I'll ride centerish, but will move over if safe and practical to do so if a faster vehicle is approaching independent of the posted SL and my current speed. My 'job' is not to slow other drivers to a lawful speed (if not needed for my safety). No wonder you get harrassed.
Al
genec
06-29-07, 02:34 PM
Firstly in #2 the cyclist was traveling under the SL, so it may be possible to pass without breaking any law.
A few disconnected but related thoughts:
-While I would not do it, the state of SL compliance and enforcement in the US is such that folks expect to be able to drive somewhat over it, so if possible to safely pass a cyclist (or any vehicle) while going a few mph over the SL, most drivers would do it and law enforcement wouldn't even care.
-It can be safer to pass quickly while traveling a bit over SL, that to pass very slowly while staying just at SL.
-It can be more comfortable for a cyclist to be passed than to be followed for an extended period.
-It can be better to pass a cyclist when one has a safe opportunity to do so, than wait behind them and later be further delayed, such as when SL changes or road grade does (slowing cyclist further)
When I head to hiking destinations on the weekends, I drive the SL on rural single lane roads all the time. I get passed by 90% of other road users. All of them have to speed to do so, all of them had to speed to get behind me in the first place. Should motorists be educated not to do this? As a motorist driving the SL I rather they pass me safely while going over the SL than to sit behind me fuming for miles on end. They shouldn't fume, but can we teach folks to be so patient?
Al
My misunderstanding... I thought she said SL.
But onto the real question...
They shouldn't fume, but can we teach folks to be so patient?
The reason they speed is because there is no expectation to be caught. If there were more enforcement, then the speeding would decrease.
Take note of what happens the minute a hiway patrol shows up... instant compliance.
A few disconnected but related thoughts:
-While I would not do it, the state of SL compliance and enforcement in the US is such that folks expect to be able to drive somewhat over it, so if possible to safely pass a cyclist (or any vehicle) while going a few mph over the SL, most drivers would do it and law enforcement wouldn't even care.
-It can be safer to pass quickly while traveling a bit over SL, that to pass very slowly while staying just at SL.
-It can be more comfortable for a cyclist to be passed than to be followed for an extended period.
-It can be better to pass a cyclist when one has a safe opportunity to do so, than wait behind them and later be further delayed, such as when SL changes or road grade does (slowing cyclist further)
When I head to hiking destinations on the weekends, I drive the SL on rural single lane roads all the time. I get passed by 90% of other road users. All of them have to speed to do so, all of them had to speed to get behind me in the first place. Should motorists be educated not to do this? As a motorist driving the SL I rather they pass me safely while going over the SL than to sit behind me fuming for miles on end. They shouldn't fume, but can we teach folks to be so patient?
Al
My misunderstanding... I thought she said SL.
But onto the real question...
They shouldn't fume, but can we teach folks to be so patient?
The reason they speed is because there is no expectation to be caught. If there were more enforcement, then the speeding would decrease.
Take note of what happens the minute a hiway patrol shows up... instant compliance.
noisebeam
06-29-07, 02:38 PM
The reason they speed is because there is no expectation to be caught. If there were more enforcement, then the speeding would decrease.
Locally, traffic police higher ups have publicly stated that one can travel 11mph over the SL and you will not get pulled over - they are only looking for reckless driving and excessive speeding. All speed limit photo enforcement is set to trigger at 11mph over SL as well.
SL locally is not even a limit any more.
Quote:
"Why are speeders allowed an 11 mph buffer?
The 10 MPH margin is intended to address language in the Arizona Revised Statutes related to speed offenses that defines, "...reasonable and prudent..." speed. It also provides a reasonable margin of error/grace for inaccurate vehicle speedometers and short-term lapses of attention by otherwise law-abiding and generally cautious drivers.
Our primary focus is on intentional, aggressive and negligent drivers. Statistics tell us that at 10 MPH over the posted speed limit, the probability of being involved in a crash doubles. However, at 20 MPH over, the probability increases to 11 times greater. We are trying to change the driving behavior of those persons who are most likely to cause crashes."
Check this out (page 2, item 5):
http://citydoc.cityofmesa.org/citydoc1/groups/public/documents/meetings/TAB_PDF_08-15-06Minutes.pdf
The fact that SL are not enforced until over 11mph over was actually considered in lowering an arterial speed limit from 55 to 45mph. On one hand its good to see that recognized, other the other freaking crazy it has come to this.
"Alan Sanderson advised that the recommendation is based on engineering judgment. He also mentioned that he had concerns about the fact that speed limits are not enforced until drivers are traveling 11 mph or more over the posted speed limit, allowing drivers to travel up to 65 mph without receiving a citation. Lowering the speed limit would allow enforcement at 56 mph. Alan advised that staff could wait to conduct a speed limit study after the project were finished, but that we would still need to establish a speed limit for the soon-to-be annexed portion or the default speed limit would be 25 mph per City Code."
Al
Locally, traffic police higher ups have publicly stated that one can travel 11mph over the SL and you will not get pulled over - they are only looking for reckless driving and excessive speeding. All speed limit photo enforcement is set to trigger at 11mph over SL as well.
SL locally is not even a limit any more.
Quote:
"Why are speeders allowed an 11 mph buffer?
The 10 MPH margin is intended to address language in the Arizona Revised Statutes related to speed offenses that defines, "...reasonable and prudent..." speed. It also provides a reasonable margin of error/grace for inaccurate vehicle speedometers and short-term lapses of attention by otherwise law-abiding and generally cautious drivers.
Our primary focus is on intentional, aggressive and negligent drivers. Statistics tell us that at 10 MPH over the posted speed limit, the probability of being involved in a crash doubles. However, at 20 MPH over, the probability increases to 11 times greater. We are trying to change the driving behavior of those persons who are most likely to cause crashes."
Check this out (page 2, item 5):
http://citydoc.cityofmesa.org/citydoc1/groups/public/documents/meetings/TAB_PDF_08-15-06Minutes.pdf
The fact that SL are not enforced until over 11mph over was actually considered in lowering an arterial speed limit from 55 to 45mph. On one hand its good to see that recognized, other the other freaking crazy it has come to this.
"Alan Sanderson advised that the recommendation is based on engineering judgment. He also mentioned that he had concerns about the fact that speed limits are not enforced until drivers are traveling 11 mph or more over the posted speed limit, allowing drivers to travel up to 65 mph without receiving a citation. Lowering the speed limit would allow enforcement at 56 mph. Alan advised that staff could wait to conduct a speed limit study after the project were finished, but that we would still need to establish a speed limit for the soon-to-be annexed portion or the default speed limit would be 25 mph per City Code."
Al
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.