Advocacy & Safety - Rant: I think I understand radicalization now

I have been fairly fortunate in terms of near-misses with other road-going vehicles, and for the most part, my vigilance has served me well to avoid accidents. Sure, I have been punched in the face by a truck driver for not "riding on the sidewalk" (police was called, and case resolved to my satisfaction), and I had to brake hard many times to avoid cars turning in front of me. However, for the most part, once I speak cordially to the drivers about how to look out for cyclists (when I can), I get on with life. I never really felt the disdain or even hatred of some cyclists for "cagers", and to paraphrase Rodney King, wanted to "all just get along". Today, I think I finally understand where the so-call "radicals" are hailing from.

It started innocently enough, with my ride to the local farmers' market and a stop-over at the local coffee shop. Riding home, a nice late-model Porsche convertible with two gentlemen pulled up alongside me on my left. I noticed they were looking towards the right, probably looking for their destination and instinctively, I had my fingers on my brake levers. Indeed, they proceeded to turn right in front of me. Obviously, I had braked at the first sight of their turn, and I wasn't in any danger of hitting them. However, I had wanted to speak to the driver to express that cyclists can travel at a faster rate than most would think. I also wanted to express that an error on the car driver's part does not typically injure the driver, but may bear severe consequences for the cyclist. The driver was apologetic of his misjudgment, and seemed willing to consider my viewpoint. However, throughout my conversation with the driver, his passenger and a truck driver (who was parked by the side of the road) were yelling rudely at me, stating that I should get lost because the driver said he was sorry.

Now, I wasn't rude or confrontational. My intent was only to offer an alternate viewpoint that many do not seem to realize - if an accident occur, regardless of who is at fault, the cyclist has a lot more to lose than the driver. Therefore, please be considerate and look out for us. I did not understand why the passenger and the truck driver were yelling at me. Did they really think a simple "sorry" can release them from all responsibility? What if I wasn't a seasoned cyclist, and did not brake hard or fast enough to avoid hitting the car? Would a sorry suffice then? Did they think that being covered by insurance and therefore being able to offer monetary compensation can cover for pain, suffering, or even death? Is a few seconds of their time worth so much that they should risk my well-being? How would they feel if I drove a M1 Abrams (or even an old Sherman) tan, paid little attention to them, turned right in front of them, and offered a sorry now and then? What if I had insurance to cover for their "troubles"?

I think this situation was significantly different from the usual hecklers from passing cars, the buzzers who get really close, and the honkers who think the bicycle's place is on the sidewalk. Those people generally revert back to reasonable normal people once they leave the safety of their steel shells. What I was up with are people who behave like asses even without their protective, anonymousing shells.

The more I thought about it, the more I think I understand radicalization. Of course, even before this, I know there are people out there who cannot be educated, do not give a damn, and couldn't be less considerate of others. However, it finally hit me that my personal well-being (as well as those of my loved ones) hinges upon their behavior, and there is nothing I can really do to affect that. I believe that anyone at the receiving end of any interactions with these folks will agree that the world will be better without these sort of behaviors. Yet, seemingly, no one is willing to do anything about it. No one is willing to identify, isolate, educate and punish the doers of these types of behaviors. Everyone is afraid of offending everyone else, and thus no one will benefit except these inconsiderates. As a result, the inconsiderates become even more inconsiderate because there is no adverse consequence. It's a feeling of helplessness, franticness and anger.

Of course, I am not going to turn into a radical, nor will I suddenly support their (to me) radical agendas. However, I believe I understand them more now, and can empathize with their cause.

practice reading drivers the riot act, radical. it really doesn't do any good, but makes you feel more empowered. I like a few loud shouts of "learn the rules of the road" which I think imparts a question in even the most hardened anti-bicycling driver out there.....they might wonder exactly WHAT those rules of the road are.

as counterpoint, I've had drivers retort idiotically 'it's never been proven in a court of law' bikes have the right to the road, which is totally nonsensical. oh well.

http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/pivot/entry.php?id=1411

Porsche mirrors are expensive, take one off.

tHAT video is a riot. Thanks for a good laugh fem in pa.

That video is great... no question. Anyone else catch the Arrested Development reference with the guy towing the chair?

By the way... very informative rant. Hardly a rant, actually.

Radicalisation can be and often is necessary, depending on the circumstance. The most radical thing a cyclist can do is to continue riding, however, and report every incident that occurs with a motorist. This has two effects: to put pressure on police and motorists to actually start giving a hoot, and to punish, eventually, those committing the acts.

"True radicals" will retort against acts committed against them with the same immaturity that the offender has dished up, whilst "progressive radicals" will behave much like the OP, offering sound, legally correct advice and doing so in a polite and considerate manner. To lurch cannonballs back and forth accomplishes nothing, and if someone is unwilling or incapable of understanding the rights of the cyclist, then justice will eventually prevail on them, so I applaud you for taking a mature approach to this.

In my area, there are considerably more incompetent drivers than educated ones, and it shows. All I can do is to keep reporting incidents and eventually, the police will have to do something...the same applies anywhere.

http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/pivot/entry.php?id=1411

Thanx. Another great add to my favorites list of cycling sites.

tHAT video is a riot. Thanks for a good laugh fem in pa.

His name is Lem.


=)

That video was definite laugh, I'd love to pull up in that truck at our local lumber yard for some home improvement supplys. :D

Mr. Fly, I'm trying to understand what you were trying to get out of the interaction with the driver. A fruit basket?

Furthermore, the argument that a cyclist is more exposed than a motorist is weak, unpersuasive, plays the victim, and begs the obvious rejoinder, Then why the hell aren't you driving a car?

I consider myself a radical (in lots of ways, not just regarding bikes). I'm not angry or cynical or violent (most of the time). I just ride my bike, and I love it. I tell other people I love riding my bike. I always ride with a big, fat, ridiculous smile on my face. That is the best advocacy there is. And honestly, I think it's pretty radical. The militant connotation of "radical" is all mixed up. That's not radical, it's just grumpy. Imagine doing something you believe can change the world, plus it makes you happy! That's radical. I always think of that line "A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having." Truth, that.

You don't have to be angry to be radical. You just have to put your whole heart into what you do.

practice reading drivers the riot act, radical. it really doesn't do any good, but makes you feel more empowered. I like a few loud shouts of "learn the rules of the road" which I think imparts a question in even the most hardened anti-bicycling driver out there.....they might wonder exactly WHAT those rules of the road are.

as counterpoint, I've had drivers retort idiotically 'it's never been proven in a court of law' bikes have the right to the road, which is totally nonsensical. oh well.

I'm pretty much with you on this one. Nobody is going to give you your rights on a silver platter, you have to assert them. I never agreed that you should act all sweet and girlish so as not to "give cycling a bad name." If a "motorist" gives me hell, I'll give it back to him. I try not to get too carried away, but, umm, sometimes....

I would not attack somebody physically, other than as a defensive measure. And I try to rant about their conduct and behavior, but leave their presumed personal characteristics out of it.

well, the word 'radical' really means 'addressing an issue at it's root or source'. so, if in this society you use human-powered transport as your primary means of getting around and eschew 'car culture' and if you believe that by doing this you are making a positive contribution towards stopping things like climate change, particulate and ground-level ozone pollution, urban sprawl and the epidemic of obesity then you're probably already a 'radical'.

people with a moderate or even no political agenda engage in all sorts of violent outbursts all the time. knocking off a review mirror or kryptoniting a windshield doesn't mean you're a 'radical'. heck, most 'road rage' instances are driver-on-driver!

so, yeah, buying groceries on your bike? my neighbour drives his truck four blocks to the 7-11. you, sir, were probably a radical all along!

Of course, I am not going to turn into a radical, nor will I suddenly support their (to me) radical agendas. However, I believe I understand them more now, and can empathize with their cause.

It is amazing how a near miss or even being hit, changes one's perspective.

His name is Lem.


=)

whoops! Sorry Lem.

people with a moderate or even no political agenda engage in all sorts of violent outbursts all the time. knocking off a review mirror or kryptoniting a windshield doesn't mean you're a 'radical'. heck, most 'road rage' instances are driver-on-driver!



Over the years I have encountered so few rude and obnoxious drivers that I hardly am going to let such a 'privileged' minority push me into the radical-cyclist-as-antifossil fuel-luddite crowd. Some cyclists just cannot accept that a bicycle is a secondary user on our roadways, and uniquely vulnerable to even the most trivial accident because we lack so many of the safety features installed in vehicles. I accept the advantages and disadvantages of cycling, the benefits and the risks, with equal degree.

roughstuff

I did not understand why the passenger and the truck driver were yelling at me. Did they really think a simple "sorry" can release them from all responsibility? What if I wasn't a seasoned cyclist, and did not brake hard or fast enough to avoid hitting the car? Would a sorry suffice then?

Look, to be honest with you the fact that you got an apology is a good thing, particularly if it wasn't sarcastic. What did you want, tears? I know that if I were to keep on pressing an issue after my wife apologized about something, I can tell you how that would end - with me on the couch, most likely, and quite deserving of it.

I know where you're coming from in general - certain drivers make me insane, but they're a minority of the total traffic. I will admit Porsche drivers are some of the worst, because they have to go fast at all times to justify the cost of their mid-life-crisis-mobile. But you can't shoot everyone who cuts you off.

So far I've found that riding pretty assertively and making eye contact works most of the time.

What are these "radical agendas" you speak of?

3-foot passing law?
Complete Streets laws?
Banning cell phone use by drivers?
Basing speed limits on the safety of all road users, not just the 85%.

What do you all think of this idea? I have been wondering what would make car drivers more wary and respectful of bicyclists. I think one of the factors accounting for this is the sense of being somewhat anonymous. How would drivers treat us if they knew there was a possibility that they were being filmed? Well, check out this product.

http://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/sunglasses-camera-with-personal-digital-video-recorder-p-591.html

I think it may be an idea to have decals and perhaps a T-shirt that state boldly something like "Please treat this bicylist with respect, your actions may be filmed for customer satisfaction review." Perhaps if more cyclists regularly recorded their rides on video and posted them to public websites and utilized them to report problems to law enforcement things would slowly improve.

Well, it is just an idea. What do you all think?

What are these "radical agendas" you speak of?

3-foot passing law?
Complete Streets laws?
Banning cell phone use by drivers?
Basing speed limits on the safety of all road users, not just the 85%.



" Porsche mirrors are expensive, take one off."

"True radicals" will retort against acts committed against them with the same immaturity that the offender
as dished up... "

"people with a moderate or even no political agenda engage in all sorts of violent outbursts all the time. knocking off a review mirror or kryptoniting a windshield"

For starters. And then there is the whole agenda promoted by the Critical Mazholes.

roughstuff

What are these "radical agendas" you speak of?

3-foot passing law?
Complete Streets laws?
Banning cell phone use by drivers?
Basing speed limits on the safety of all road users, not just the 85%.

Gets my vote!

What do you all think of this idea? I have been wondering what would make car drivers more wary and respectful of bicyclists. I think one of the factors accounting for this is the sense of being somewhat anonymous. How would drivers treat us if they knew there was a possibility that they were being filmed? Well, check out this product.

http://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/sunglasses-camera-with-personal-digital-video-recorder-p-591.html

I think it may be an idea to have decals and perhaps a T-shirt that state boldly something like "Please treat this bicylist with respect, your actions may be filmed for customer satisfaction review." Perhaps if more cyclists regularly recorded their rides on video and posted them to public websites and utilized them to report problems to law enforcement things would slowly improve.

Well, it is just an idea. What do you all think?

I love the idea of more cameras at intersections and critical regions where crime runs rampant, which is just about every city these days. Now if we can just brush aside the nuisance lawsuits from civil rights 'advocates,' we can get those videos of autos assaulting cyclists that I hear so much about, and take action to stop it.

roughstuff

The near misses when they arent paying attention is one thing, and a very bad and dangerous one at that. The intentional stuff is what honks me off. Try to sneak up behind me and honk the horn, then speed around me and stomp on the brakes. OOOO that makes me more than a radical. Other than that I jsut have a good time. The really stupid and mean things I have seen has always been with incredibly fat people or really little people. I dont know if this is always the case, but I have never had a problem with a normal sized person.

Over the years I have encountered so few rude and obnoxious drivers that I hardly am going to let such a 'privileged' minority push me into the radical-cyclist-as-antifossil fuel-luddite crowd. Some cyclists just cannot accept that a bicycle is a secondary user on our roadways, and uniquely vulnerable to even the most trivial accident because we lack so many of the safety features installed in vehicles. I accept the advantages and disadvantages of cycling, the benefits and the risks, with equal degree.

i too come from the 'alberta prairies' (well, technically 'aspen parkland / montain transitional ecosystem'... but that lacks a certain ring) and agree that the number of toxic/agro drivers here is surprisingly minimal, especially considering the reputation this province has for 'hicks and yeehaws' or whatever. heck, even just this morning i did a little dodge around an opening door and the driver got out of her car and chased me, on foot, to the stop light to apologize. and earlier this summer as i was climbing a particularly steep grade some dude in a pickup truck pulled up alongside me and asked if i wanted a tow to the top.

now, having said that i want to address a couple of your points:

1. pro-cycling and anti-car doesn't necessarily mean 'luddite'. okay, sure, there are some dudes on tallbikes with a zerzan or hakim bey book in their back pocket but that's far from the, uh, mainstream of radicalism (can you believe i just said that?). personally i think the key is the use of appropriate technology in the schumacher sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_is_Beautiful). there are lots of applications for fossil fuels. i like my house warm in the winter and would never advocate farmers give up their tractors for tandem-pulled plows. but, by the same token it's absolutely ridiculous for one person to be driving a hummer 20km to work. my philosophy is: if i can do it without fossil fuels i do, if i can't i try to be as economical as possible. sadly, in this society, that's a pretty radical viewpoint!

2. yes, bikes are secondary users on our roadways and all of our infrastructure is really geared to keep it that way. it's kind of a vicious cycle: cycling is hard in my city and, in some ways, also very scary. that barrier to adoption stops a lot of people from using bikes and, thus, guarantees the continued secondary nature of cycling. heck, we have these 'cycling lanes' that are demarked by a stencil of a bike on the pavement all over this town, but these so-called 'lanes' don't provide any clearly set-aside space and almost always run down the side a row of parking meters.

3. i think the primary objective of cycling advocates has to be to encourage people to get out of their hummers and onto a bike for that commute. kryptoniting a windshield probably isn't going to do that. what *is* going to do that is a much harder question to answer. the traditional approach of just making driving more expensive with toll roads or higher meter prices has proven time and again that it just doesn't work. people love their cars and are willing to pay exorbitant sums of money to run them. i think the key is to present cycling as safe, effective, fun and all-inclusive. the all-inclusive part is where the bike community really falls down -- there's a culture on the street that loves to deride cyclists if they don't have killer gear or are old or overweight or slow or whatever. the radical cycling community is really going to have to choose between the eliteism of the 'outsider' image or the sense of populism that has the potential to affect meaningful change.

other than that, i love the part about accepting the advantages and disadvantages. excellent sense of pragmatism!

I really don't want to ride like cyclists are a whiny, oppressed minority---

It sounds like you are unreasonable in your expectations. The driver apologized---- then you need to let it go. Usually a driver will threaten to kill you. What did you really expect?

I wonder if automobile occupants feel cornered when confronted, particularly if they are stuck in traffic. Feeling cornered might result in a more aggressive response as a defense mechanism out of insecurity.

Problems like this are why our bike club encourages cyclists to use the city's road rage hotline to vent about this sort of thing. The police will contact drivers and talk to them if possible.

...... and earlier this summer as i was climbing a particularly steep grade some dude in a pickup truck pulled up alongside me and asked if i wanted a tow to the top.

now, having said that i want to address a couple of your points:

1. pro-cycling and anti-car doesn't necessarily mean 'luddite'. okay, sure, there are some dudes on tallbikes with a zerzan or hakim bey book in their back pocket .....
2. yes, bikes are secondary users on our roadways and all of our infrastructure is really geared to keep it that way. it's kind of a vicious cycle: cycling is hard in my city...


3. ..... there's a culture on the street that loves to deride cyclists if they don't have killer gear or are old or overweight or slow or whatever. the radical cycling community is really going to have to choose between the eliteism of the 'outsider' image or the sense of populism that has the potential to affect meaningful change.

other than that, i love the part about accepting the advantages and disadvantages. excellent sense of pragmatism!


Hehe...I've had similar events in alberta in the rockies. I am willing to accept a ride downhill, if the conditions merit it. But it is my obligation to get to the top of the pass under my own power..sunwapta be damned! :)


(1) Thats right, there are some dudes.....and unfortunately they are the ones who have captured the cycling agenda (esp in urban areas) and have defined the cyclist in the eyes of other roadway users. The billions of miles of cycling goodwill by organizations such as Bikecentennial vanishes in the stupidity of a single Critical Mazzholes ride.

(2) Bicycles are not 2ndary users because 'cycling is hard' in your or any other city. They are 2ndary users because they lack the VERY ITEMS that make being on the roadway a safe(r) experience...turn signals, brake lights, backup lights, stall lights (all the same lights of course; and back ups don't apply to bikes of course); as well as the numerous safety features which automobiles and trucks have...seat belts, air bags, etc. Much the same (but not all) can be said about motorcycles, who often use the same childish terms (cagers, etc) to refer to motorists.

(3) Well enough said.


roughstuff

I passed a Porche last week. It was such a joke. The guy was going about 25 MPH , (becuase of traffic). I was behind him and he saw me in the mirror and zoomed up about 50 feet, only to catch the exaust of the car in front of him as I passed in the bike lane.

Thanks LEM for the video. That would make some great PSAs!

All radical means to me is someone who is interested in expediting the change of the status quo. So Bush is being somewhat radical when he pushes for the truncation of the right to privacy.

I would like rapid change in the status quo regarding many motoring issues. Road design, realocation of road resources to benifit urban cycling, speed limit reductions, redlight and stop cameras, black boxes in cars used for law enforcment and insurance purposes, increase in minimum driving age, more jail time for DUI, mandatory BAC interlocks, smaller engines, smaller vehicle gross wieghts, mandatory re-testing every 2 years after the age of 65, fees for driving in conjested DT areas, stopping the magistrate from giving ticket fine reductions and on and on.

(2) Bicycles [...] are 2ndary users because they lack the VERY ITEMS that make being on the roadway a safe(r) experience...turn signals, brake lights, backup lights, stall lights (all the same lights of course; and back ups don't apply to bikes of course); as well as the numerous safety features which automobiles and trucks have...seat belts, air bags, etc.

Is secondary status the fault of the cyclist for not using these higher energy and crash absorption technologies, or the fault of the culture for marginalizing those who do not use these technologies?

-Steve Goodridge, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (not a luddite)

Is secondary status the fault of the cyclist for not using these higher energy and crash absorption technologies, or the fault of the culture for marginalizing those who do not use these technologies?

-Steve Goodridge, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (not a luddite)

I can't really answer your question as it is posed. What I mean to imply is that with vechicles, there are many features which make it clear what the motorist is doing, or will soon BE doing. Using these signals (and some, like brake lights, are automatic) rarely, if ever, requires the driver to remove his hands from the all important steering mechanism. With bicycles these signals, if they exist (and they don't, because a bike is a simple thing) this is not the case. To use a hand signal, you have to remove your hand from the bars....at the very moment you probably need to have them there the most.

And vehicles are getting even BETTER technologies in the near future...brake lights that show the intensity of the braking; warnings when you are approaching the vehicle in front of you too quickly, etc.


And please no cackling about how many motorists don't use their signals. It is hypocritical for cyclists who have none, to carp about a few who don't use theirs.

Similarly, vehicles have mechanisms in them to protect them from the consequences of their own and OTHERS neglect. Cyclists have voluntarily decided to enter a highway without these protections. Just as some drivers don't use their seatbelts or disable airbags, this is their choice...and choices, as all luddites and radicals forget, have consequences.


roughstuff (Should be PhD but i told my committee to go F**K itself, so I am not a luddite, but I am somewhat of a crudite! ;) )

Similarly, vehicles have mechanisms in them to protect them from the consequences of their own and OTHERS neglect. Cyclists have voluntarily decided to enter a highway without these protections. Just as some drivers don't use their seatbelts or disable airbags, this is their choice...and choices, as all luddites and radicals forget, have consequences.

Sure, but I think we want to be careful not to hold negligent drivers to a lower standard just because some, or even most, road users use crash absorption technology.

I know I'm less safe leaving my house every day without a bullet-proof vest, but I don't think that reduces the validity of my complaint about gun violence in the streets.

Different vehicles have different advantages and disadvantages. I think in a free country, we have to be vigilant in protecting equal rights - meaning equal status - on the roads despite different severity of outcomes when something goes wrong.

Sure, but I think we want to be careful not to hold negligent drivers to a lower standard just because some, or even most, road users use crash absorption technology.

I know I'm less safe leaving my house every day without a bullet-proof vest, but I don't think that reduces the validity of my complaint about gun violence in the streets.

Different vehicles have different advantages and disadvantages. I think in a free country, we have to be vigilant in protecting equal rights - meaning equal status - on the roads despite different severity of outcomes when something goes wrong.


True...but I am not saying or doing that. A vehicle has mechanisms to prevent your FROM consequences of neglect by negligent drivers. A bicycle has far, far fewer such mechanisms, if any.

Barking about rights though is a red herring. No one has a 'right' to drive. It is a privilege. There is no more equal 'status' on the roadway for cyclists than there is equal status for midgets on a football team or basketball court.


roughstuff

There is no more equal 'status' on the roadway for cyclists than there is equal status for midgets on a football team or basketball court.

Competitive sports participation is an elective meritocracy by definition. Public road access for the traveling public on a first come, first-served basis is an essential liberty, an inalienable right if you will, with legal recognition going back at least as far as the Magna Carta.

In order to equitably protect the travel rights of the public, the greater regulatory burden has always been placed on those people who choose to operate vehicle types that pose the greater danger to other members of the public. If some people are unable or unwilling to fulfill the legal responsibilities that go with the privilege of operating a motorized vehicle, they can instead exercise their right to travel by non-motorized means.

earlier this summer as i was climbing a particularly steep grade some dude in a pickup truck pulled up alongside me and asked if i wanted a tow to the top.

That rocks! I'd have probably done it just for fun.

here is a picture from a morning commute in beijing, one of the larger cities on this planet.

http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg

obviously bikes here are either a primary mode of transport or at least a very strong secondary. and all without having the features of motor vehicles like brake lights, turn signals and airbags.

so why is this? well, lots of reasons, many of them economic, but the continued success of bikes in china in the face of increasing affluence can be boiled down to two things. first, culture. there is a strong culture that emphasizes bicycling. it's considered 'normal' and everybody does it. when everyone is on a bike it becomes a more comfortable and safe activity to cycle yourself.

the second reason is infrastructure. see that road? it's a bike path. compare that to your local mbp (if you're lucky to have one). if the infrastructure is set up to be bike-friendly, more folks will bike. my mom is *not* going to roar down 12th ave, jockying between f150's to squeak around the dump trucks backing out onto the road. but she *would* ride down this smooth, wide mbp.

so, again, to make biking a serious part of urban transportation we need to make it fun (culture) and accessible (infrastructure and culture).

here is a picture from a morning commute in beijing, one of the larger cities on this planet.

http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg

obviously bikes here are either a primary mode of transport or at least a very strong secondary. and all without having the features of motor vehicles like brake lights, turn signals and airbags.

so why is this? well, lots of reasons, ....

Very true and very impressive. I would like to point out though, that sales of automobiles in china are soaring as people become more wealthy and their time/convenience/comfort of travel becomes more important to them. In addition, this is a massive bike lane, not an area where bikes and cars are sharing the road, which is what the issue in most western countries like the US is about.

Dollar for dollar, for me the best investment for cyclists is to expand the shoulders of roadways. To me this is the 'bike lane.' Cars should be infrequent visitors to this lane; and bikes should be infrequent visitors to the main lane of traffic.

roughstuff

Steve, thanks for once again eloquently expressing my own viewpoint! :-)

I'll add: I accept that I have less protection in a crash than a car, but I do not accept that I am a secondary road user. Secondary road user implies that the cars' need for convenience outweighs my right to the road. However well or badly that works out in practice, I will not accept it in principle.

And by the way: Cyclists have turn signals, they're called hand signals, and I use them whenever other traffic may be impacted by my move, and I am able to take a hand off the bar temporarily. (And if you really want, you can buy real turn signal lights for bikes, too.)

And by the way: Cyclists have turn signals, they're called hand signals, and I use them whenever other traffic may be impacted by my move, and I am able to take a hand off the bar temporarily. (And if you really want, you can buy real turn signal lights for bikes, too.)


Which was exactly my point, thanks. You have to take your hand off the steering mechanism just at the point when you may need it the most. This is the whole reason why hand signals for vehicles were abandoned a few trillion passenger miles ago.

I like your comment, "and I am able to take my hand off temporarily. " So if you can't, then signaling becomes an option. Would you like it if signaling was made optional for cars, too?

I have seen turn signals on bikes, but they don't stand out much in the daytime. Nighttime would be much better I imagine.

roughstuff

all bicyclists should practice steering a bike one handed thru all but the most challenging turns at speed. I think some practice is in order, roghstuff ;)

all bicyclists should practice steering a bike one handed thru all but the most challenging turns at speed. I think some practice is in order, roughstuff ;)


Ok...i will try those, as I ride on many rural roads and yes, I feel vulnerable when I have only one hand on the bars. It is a skill I haven't developed. Also (this point has come up in previous threads) a quick hand signal, then returning that hand to the bars, can be just as effective as one prolonged turn as you describe.

roughstuff

http://www.denniscox.com/BeijingBicycles.jpg


That's a commute? Man, that's utopia! But none of them are wearing helmets :(

That's a commute? Man, that's utopia! But none of them are wearing helmets :(


I'm wondering...could something like this be done in big cities by closing roadways or maybe half of two roadways (one way in each direction) to all but bicycles and pedestrians on a rotating basis? Its utopia because the bikes don't have to 'share the road' with anyone except themselves. Has this ever been tried in the US or Europe? (I know there have occasionally closures, but I am talking about a systematic plan.)

roughstuff

I'm wondering...could something like this be done in big cities by closing roadways or maybe half of two roadways (one way in each direction) to all but bicycles and pedestrians on a rotating basis? Its utopia because the bikes don't have to 'share the road' with anyone except themselves. Has this ever been tried in the US or Europe? (I know there have occasionally closures, but I am talking about a systematic plan.)

roughstuff


Closing streets to motor traffic has resulted in mixed results in the US; usually it chokes off businesses on the street that depend on customers who prefer convenient automobile access (this can include a wide range of businesses including restaurants, banks, and retail). In other places where an adequate critical mass of pedestrian and cycle traffic, the closure creates a more enjoyable space that attracts more business. The former case is common in less dense areas and where there aren't many residents downtown; the latter case is usually a denser city with a lot of residents living in the downtown.

Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, NC was closed to vehicle traffic in 1977 to create a pedestrian mall, which the business community there wanted, but eventually many of the businesses failed due to inconvenient access by motor vehicle, which an increasing number of customers depended on. Although it was pretty during the day, it became deserted and a bit scary at night. The road was recently reopened to traffic with much fanfare, and political support from the business community.

Some communities have experimented with closing a street to through motor traffic, but leaving barricade openings for through bicycle traffic. (Motor traffic can only travel short segments and then must detour) These are sometimes called "bicycle boulevards." They are better for businesses in most cases than complete road closures. Getting the intersections with priority roads to work adequately for cyclists can be an issue when the non-priority route is closed to motor traffic.

Closing streets to motor traffic has resulted in mixed results in the US; usually it chokes off businesses on the street that depend on customers who prefer convenient automobile access (this can include a wide range of businesses including restaurants, banks, and retail). In other places where an adequate critical mass of pedestrian and cycle traffic, the closure creates a more enjoyable space that attracts more business. The former case is common in less dense areas and where there aren't many residents downtown; the latter case is usually a denser city with a lot of residents living in the downtown.
.

I figured it would be a big "sometimes it works, sometimes not." :(

But I wonder about closing the road on only one side and making that the bike fare; and of course the next parallel road would be closed to be one way the opposite direction. Then, you still have auto access (though less parking). In addition, by rotating the roads you can share the burden of lost business, if it comes to that. Still...tough to imagine it not having negative impact.

roughstuff

Which was exactly my point, thanks. You have to take your hand off the steering mechanism just at the point when you may need it the most. This is the whole reason why hand signals for vehicles were abandoned a few trillion passenger miles ago.

Yeah, because one hand is on the cell phone, and the other is on the french fry. The knee is being used to friction turn the wheel. There was one non-signaling car and one fake signaling car on my short ride this morning. So, signals on a car need to be taken with a grain of salt. Oh, and the fake signaler was on the phone.

In addition, despite all of the very impressive safety features of cars, they are not much safer today than in year past. See Smeed's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed%27s_law) law for the explanation.

But this whole argument is pointless. If a driver runs down a bike. The biker is not at fault for failure to use 'proper' safety measures. The biker is using appropriate safety measures for the mode of travel. The biker is not a 'secondary' road user because of some lack of technology. They are a secondary road user, because many people feel that 'might makes right,' and that they are more important than everybody else.

Yeah, because one hand is on the cell phone, and the other is on the french fry. The knee is being used to friction turn the wheel. There was one non-signaling car and one fake signaling car on my short ride this morning. So, signals on a car need to be taken with a grain of salt. Oh, and the fake signaler was on the phone.



Yikes that IS scary! Like I say often though I run into drivers like this once in a blue moon. I know many people who won't use a turn signal when in a turn lane already...but thats about all I notice.

Roughstuff

It's pretty common here. In addition to those offenses on my two mile ride this happened:
I'm in a turn lane at a red turn arrow. Lady pulls up next to me in the left of two through lanes with her left blinker on to turn left and just waits there, despite her green light. A guy in a jacked up truck comes up behind her and lays on the horn non-stop until the through light turns red. Now, I don't know why the lady in the car was in the wrong lane, or why she didn't just go through and turn left later. I also don't know why the truck driver didn't go into the right lane and go through. Both were selfish, though. It was really a pretty comical standoff.
Also on this ride, several drivers rolled a stop sign, and one guy peeled out from a stop, and turned left in the wrong part of pavement so he didn't have to wait for me to clear the intersection. So here (LA suburbs), there are loads of horrible drivers, and cyclists are definitely 2nd class road users.
Drivers are not 1st class due to any superior signaling technology in their cars or due to better habits. They are 1st class, b/c they have a me first attitude. When confronting other cars, they do it as equals, and it sometimes leads to a stand-off. When they confront a cyclist with their me first attitude, they do it with a might makes right standpoint and treat the cyclist as a 2nd class citizen.
I should note that the vast majority of people in cars here are very nice and courteous. It's just the few who don't understand that their rush is a reflection of their own failure to organize their life. It is not an excuse to drive like an idiot.

That's a commute? Man, that's utopia! But none of them are wearing helmets :(

Yup, very few people in the world do. It's an unusual thing to do.

I find confronting someone on the road a very dicey proposition, but sometimes you have to say something if you have a chance.

Sounds like the driver got it, but maybe if he didn't you can relate to the driver something he/shes more likely to understand the position he/she put you in.

Mention it's like if he tried to go through an intersection in the curb lane and a truck decided to make a right from the left lane at the last minute without looking. Maybe he/she would understand the position he/she put you in.

I don't think it's too radical to expect the driver to yeild to your right of way