VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

[Helmet Head]

Of course not. But I habitually look back before approaching any such place, at least with a mirror glance, and will move left if it is safe and clear to do so. If overtaking traffic is present or approaching, and their speed indicates they are not going to turn right, I'll usually maintain position. Otherwise I will negotiate to move left.
'Negotiate to move left??' Why aren't you already there? Is your default position on the right?

If I'm in the secondary/sharing position, generally both of these conditions (among others) are true:

Some time earlier, traffic from behind was approaching, it was safe and reasonable to move aside into the secondary/sharing position, and I did.
Traffic is still in the process of passing me (if the last car has passed, then I'm in the process of moving back to my default position, a condition for which I have advance notice because of my mirror).

If all that is true, and I'm approaching an intersection or junction, and the speed or spacing of overtaking traffic is not such that a possible right turn can be ruled out, then I negotiate to move left. And this happens about 100-200' prior to the intersection/junction, depending on travel speed.


Btw, As you were 'negotiating' with approaching motorists to move left, you passed an intersection. Oh, there goes another. And another. What are you doing on the right again?

Again, I can't tell you where exactly I would ride on a road I've never ridden on. What I can say is that if the only car traveling in my direction is still a ways back and I'm approaching a junction with a blind alley, I would not be as far right as only 6' from the parked cars which shorten my sight lines and from which my buffer zone is too compromised.

If I'm being passed by a stream of faster traffic, per the above conditions, which was not the condition you were riding in (or the Mercedes driver would have backed up into that stream), that's very different.

[Bekologist]

And this happens about 100-200' prior to the intersection/junction, depending on travel speed. such excellent internet armchair bicycling skills, head. :rolleyes: very impressive technique.

that's the way it always works out there on the roads, eh? :roflmao:

by the way, a vehicle can pull out of a blind intersection and violate your right of way even if you're riding in the middle of the lane or on the left stripe. I don't know if you're aware of this, given the paucity of your actual bicycling experience -not your internet bicycling or driving-as-if-you-were-bicycling experience.

[ghettocruiser]

it has been thousands of miles since a door opened into the door zone while I was riding by.

Last Tuesday.

And I have maybe 700 ft worth of road-parked cars on a 21 mile round trip.

[Helmet Head]

Exactly. Because VC dogma and its most addled adherents are obsessed with passing traffic and 'close passes,' despite the sheepish insistence to the contrary. So they almost always think of their adjustments in lane position in terms of 'controlling' passing vehicles, and 'not much attention paid' to the importance of staying left for other reasons, even though those reasons turn out to be much more important. To your credit you have tried to add some of these reasons to your version of VC, but I think Forester might wonder why you are pushing something which he deliberately left out of his program.

Actually, the primary reason for staying left in traditional vc, if you will, is for proper "destination positioning" which makes the cyclist more visible and predictable. We can agree once again that there was little attention paid to the sight line and buffer zone enhancements that come with being further left in traditional vc, but that seems to be changing, and I think most of the credit should go to you for that change. My focus in this thread has been on what I see as the significant shortcomings in your book - your depiction of vehicular-cycling as being significantly different from what Forester and others describe and teach, and your discounting of the value of best practices. I plan to start a new thread some day soon on a more positive note, focusing on the "best" of Forester/Hurst/Franklin.


Why not further left? Think outside the box.

Further left than the left tire track? Sometimes, obviously when turning left or passing slower traffic, but being much further left than the left tire track when going straight can begin to compromise predictability because it can make the through cyclist appear like he's preparing to turn left.

[Helmet Head]

If taking the lane in front of faster traffic will make you significantly safer, do it. If you find yourself doing it all the time, I believe the chance is good that something has gone gravely wrong with your approach.

What do you mean by "all the time"? No one, so far as I know, advocates doing it literally all of the time, without exception. Few if any advocate taking the lane when faster same direction traffic (fsdt) is present and a safe and reasonable sharing position is available.


All of this has a lot to do with where you ride, and what kind of roads you need to use. Many cases of excess lane taking could be cured immediately with a change in route.

If you are riding where lane taking in front of faster traffic is a real necessity, then you are riding in a less than ideal situation. If maximizing safety is your true interest, you would do well to find a route with wide outside lanes, less traffic, or both. If no alternate routes are available, my condolences.

Ideally, a cyclist-driver encounter is one of mutual compromise, not a mefirstfyou from either party.

Robert
Again, I find it disheartening that a noted cycling author supports the argument that cyclists should not be riding on certain surface roads simply because doing so may inconvenience motorists (due to narrow lanes and relatively high speeds and high volumes), not to mention buying into the specious argument that riding on such roads constitutes a significant compromise in cyclist safety.

EDIT: The sentiment expressed in Robert's words comes very close to endorsing the widely held notion that cyclists do not have equal rights to the surface streets, but are essentially second-class users who have a legal, moral or practical obligation to stay out of the way of the first-class users, the drivers of motor vehicles.

[Helmet Head]

by the way, a vehicle can pull out of a blind intersection and violate your right of way even if you're riding in the middle of the lane or on the left stripe. I don't know if you're aware of this, given the paucity of your actual bicycling experience -not your internet bicycling or driving-as-if-you-were-bicycling experience.
Beck, best practices developed to optimize safety by reducing risk are not about eliminating risk, they are about mitigating risk.

The fact that a driver of a vehicle can still pull out of a blind intersection and violate your right of way even if you're riding in the middle of the lane or on the left stripe is relevant only to refute the argument that riding further left eliminates one's risk to this happening. But no one is arguing that, of course, so making this point is moot.

The issue is whether habitually riding further left mitigates such risk to any significant degree by increasing sight lines, buffer zones, conspicuity and predictability.

[Helmet Head]

Additionally, if he really has been passing (either in his car or on a bike)sooooo many cars without their doors opening, he's either incredibly unobservant, or door zones are far more innocuous of a lane position than he preposterates.
Most of the parked cars I pass regularly on my commute are parked all day without moving, as they are either students at the university, parked to go to work, or parked at home all day. I happen to not ride through any high ped traffic areas with people parked for short periods to do some shopping or go to an appointment. That's probably the biggest reason I rarely see car doors open.

[genec]

If taking the lane in front of faster traffic will make you significantly safer, do it. If you find yourself doing it all the time, I believe the chance is good that something has gone gravely wrong with your approach. All of this has a lot to do with where you ride, and what kind of roads you need to use. Many cases of excess lane taking could be cured immediately with a change in route.

If you are riding where lane taking in front of faster traffic is a real necessity, then you are riding in a less than ideal situation. If maximizing safety is your true interest, you would do well to find a route with wide outside lanes, less traffic, or both. If no alternate routes are available, my condolences.

Ideally, a cyclist-driver encounter is one of mutual compromise, not a mefirstfyou from either party.

Robert

I have to step in here for a second and squash that "alternate route" thinking.

I know that in many eastern cities, there are wonderful grids on which towns are built that may then offer the opportunity for "alternate routes;" however, in many western cities such alternate routes may not exist. Often in this town for instance, the ONLY road from one area to another is the ONLY way to get there. The geography of San Diego is such that a valley or canyon is crossed only in one place or the road only goes through the gap in such a canyon at one location. That arterial road that then carries all the motor traffic and is also the only road that cyclists use.

Use an "alternate route" just doesn't work.

Now if cyclist does in fact have the same rights to the road as motorists... then there should be no issue with cyclists taking a lane when no other way to get from point A to point B exists. Why can't motorists be trained to realize that? Cyclists are not out to "steal" the road from motorists... but we have every right to use it in the same manner as motorists. There should be no reason to have to specify a need for a road for a cyclist.

Our recent firestorm in San Diego again emphasized the "alternate route" issue... people were evacuated early in some cases as "the only road" would soon be inundated by fire... yet their house may have been miles away.

Thank you for the "condolences" regarding the "alternate route" issue, but seriously, this is the way things are here in the west...

Please don't suggest that lane taking is excess... it is simply the only choice. BTW wide roads may not exist either.

[Helmet Head]

Ideally, a cyclist-driver encounter is one of mutual compromise, not a mefirstfyou from either party.


I think this statement illustrates another difference between the Forester and Hurst cycling philosophies. What Forester calls the "First come, first served" rule [1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0n2t7P1v2M8C&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=%22john+forester%22+%22first+come+first+served%22&source=web&ots=IBoTUVlddn&sig=gkF32B_HifBE6cfscJR86U-eqS8)], Hurst seems to refer to as "mefirstfyou".

First come, First Served

If you are traveling on a portion of a roadway, nobody else may
intrude in front of you so close as to constitute a hazard. You
have a superior right to the place you occupy and to a reasonably
safe distance ahead of you. This is called your right-of-way. You
must not intrude into anybody else's right-of-way, either. The dis-
tance defined as "so close as to constitute a hzard" is based on
speed, visibility, highway, and traffic conditions. Be reasonable
with other drivers and they will be reasonable with you.
--Effective Cycling, 1993, p. 250

But to Robert, apparently (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding), this is not seen as the mutual respect which I believe it reflects, but as an example "me first f you" thinking. It's almost as if Robert seems to believe that in order to assert your rights you have to be something of an ahole.

[genec]

I think this statement illustrates another difference between the Forester and Hurst cycling philosophies. What Forester calls the "First come, first served" rule [1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0n2t7P1v2M8C&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=%22john+forester%22+%22first+come+first+served%22&source=web&ots=IBoTUVlddn&sig=gkF32B_HifBE6cfscJR86U-eqS8)], Hurst seems to refer to as "mefirstfyou".

First come, First Served

If you are traveling on a portion of a roadway, nobody else may
intrude in front of you so close as to constitute a hazard. You
have a superior right to the place you occupy and to a reasonably
safe distance ahead of you. This is called your right-of-way. You
must not intrude into anybody else's right-of-way, either. The dis-
tance defined as "so close as to constitute a hzard" is based on
speed, visibility, highway, and traffic conditions. Be reasonable
with other drivers and they will be reasonable with you.
--Effective Cycling, 1993, p. 250

But to Robert, apparently (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding), this is not seen as the mutual respect which I believe it reflects, but as an example "me first f you" thinking. It's almost as if Robert seems to believe that in order to assert your rights you have to be something of an ahole.

Only one problem... Forester represents the ideal situation... which should effectively eliminate all right hooks. Reality is clearly something else all together.

[noisebeam]

I have to step in here for a second and squash that "alternate route" thinking.

Suggesting alternate routes is a 'bicycle advocacy' cop out that I most often hear from motorists. One can debate the relative availability of alternate routes in different places and for different purposes of cycling, bu the bottom line remains that cyclist must and should be able to go anywhere any and all the roads in a region reach. That means every route* must be a cycling route

The one and only usefulness of 'alternate route' suggestion is for transportational cycling newbies who may need a little help at first to get out of the 'this is how I drove my car there it must be the only way' mindset.

*There is one important exception which are interstate freeways that have no possible destination along them and also have a parallel route between the two possible destinations that the both the freeway and alternate route connect.

Al

[Helmet Head]

I have to step in here for a second and squash that "alternate route" thinking.

I know that in many eastern cities, there are wonderful grids on which towns are built that may then offer the opportunity for "alternate routes;" however, in many western cities such alternate routes may not exist. Often in this town for instance, the ONLY road from one area to another is the ONLY way to get there. The geography of San Diego is such that a valley or canyon is crossed only in one place or the road only goes through the gap in such a canyon at one location. That arterial road that then carries all the motor traffic and is also the only road that cyclists use.

Use an "alternate route" just doesn't work.

Now if cyclist does in fact have the same rights to the road as motorists... then there should be no issue with cyclists taking a lane when no other way to get from point A to point B exists. Why can't motorists be trained to realize that? Cyclists are not out to "steal" the road from motorists... but we have every right to use it in the same manner as motorists. There should be no reason to have to specify a need for a road for a cyclist.

Our recent firestorm in San Diego again emphasized the "alternate route" issue... people were evacuated early in some cases as "the only road" would soon be inundated by fire... yet their house may have been miles away.

Thank you for the "condolences" regarding the "alternate route" issue, but seriously, this is the way things are here in the west...

Please don't suggest that lane taking is excess... it is simply the only choice. BTW wide roads may not exist either.
Good points, Gene.

Further, this highlights another big difference between Hurst and Forester. it is the arterials which often have the characteristics that Hurst seems to be recommending that cyclists avoid, while Forester promotes use of arterials:
...
Traffic on an arterial highway always has the right-
of-way, whereas traffic on a side street must always yield to any
approaching traffic that is so close as to constitute a hzard. This
enables the arterial traffic to keep moving with both speed and
safety. Cyclists should take particular care to follow arterial
routes: the added effort of stop-and-go cycling on the side streets
is very great, and comes out of their endurance, not a gas tank.
Their fragility and vulnerability makes the protection provided by
the cross-street stop signs much more important for cyclists than
for motorists.
-- (my emphasis) Effective Cycling, John Forester, 1993, pp 250-251 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0n2t7P1v2M8C&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=%22john+forester%22+%22first+come+first+served%22&source=web&ots=IBoTUVlddn&sig=gkF32B_HifBE6cfscJR86U-eqS8#PPA250,M1) Note that both use safety as part of the basis for what they are promoting. Forester argues that riding on the arterials is safer, while Hurst argues (here in this thread; I don't recall that he does that in his book) that finding a less busy route with slower traffic is safer.

Now, I can predict Hurst's response. He will say it is folly to see stop signs as "protection", but such a criticism would assume that what Forester is saying is that the protection eliminates risk, rather than mitigates it. Of course, Forester means the latter.

[noisebeam]

I much prefer arterials. There are far fewer close calls with cars pulling out of side streets and driveways, minimal door zones and many fewer haphazard peds and cyclists.

One behavior I have noted most different is when a motorist enters an arterial or driveway from a side street they stop and look. They know that arterials are busy and fast, so it is prudent to do so. When motorists enter a side street from a driveway or another side street is when they rarely fully stop and only give a quick glance. The are expecting slower traffic and a much lower volume so most often they can get away with this less careful behavior. Drivers are less vigilant on side streets all around.

Those are the safety reason to prefer arterials. The practical is they are often the only way to travel more than a few miles, they are faster due to lack of stop signs and on-demand lights, they are shorter, more direct and the passing 45-55mph traffic provides a 1-2mph boost in cycling speed.

Al

[genec]

I much prefer arterials. There are far fewer close calls with cars pulling out of side streets and driveways, minimal door zones and many fewer haphazard peds and cyclists.


Al

Honestly the only real problem I have with arterials, is that sometimes (not always) they get turned into "urban freeways" that tend to have wide radius turns and multilaned merges that are not conducive to cyclists.

Fortunately most arterials around here (not all) tend to be WOL or have BL.

[Helmet Head]

Honestly the only real problem I have with arterials, is that sometimes (not always) they get turned into "urban freeways" that tend to have wide radius turns and multilaned merges that are not conducive to cyclists.

Fortunately most arterials around here (not all) tend to be WOL or have BL.
One of the notable "not all" arterials is La Jolla Village Drive (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=from:+La+Jolla+Village+Drive+at+La+Jolla+Scenic+Drive,+92037+to:+la+jolla+village+drive+at+towne+c entre+drive,+92037&sll=32.868414,-117.228498&sspn=0.029233,0.035105&ie=UTF8&ll=32.872126,-117.224121&spn=0.029232,0.035105&z=15&om=1). Six lanes (8 lanes at the freeway interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=La+Jolla+Village+Drive+at+La+Jolla+Scenic+Drive,+92037&daddr=Gilman+Dr+%26+Villa+La+Jolla+Dr,+La+Jolla,+CA+92037+to:Nobel+Dr+%26+Towne+Centre+Dr,+San+Diego ,+CA+92122+to:La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Towne+Centre+Dr,+San+Diego,+CA&mra=pi&mrcr=2&sll=32.86769,-117.224665&sspn=0.029233,0.035105&ie=UTF8&ll=32.871892,-117.229078&spn=0.001827,0.002194&t=h&z=19&om=1)), 45 mph speed limit (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=la+jolla+village+drive+at+villa+la+jolla,+92037&sll=32.841925,-117.26945&sspn=0.007022,0.011877&ie=UTF8&ll=32.873532,-117.228187&spn=0.007019,0.011877&z=17&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.872244,-117.227106&cbp=1,452.7489900255964,0.5,1,0.3806994151982972), no bike lanes or WOLs, some onstreet parking. Many folks recommend the following alternatives to the 2.1 mile route depicted:
going around UCSD to the north (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=La+Jolla+Village+Drive+at+La+Jolla+Scenic+Drive,+92037&daddr=north+torrey+pines+road+at+la+jolla+shores+drive,+92037+to:N+Torrey+Pines+Rd+%26+Genesee+Ave,+ La+Jolla,+CA+92093+to:La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Towne+Centre+Dr,+San+Diego,+CA&mra=pi&mrcr=2&sll=32.88095,-117.242095&sspn=0.029229,0.035105&ie=UTF8&z=14&om=1) (4.3 miles)
going though UCSD (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=La+Jolla+Village+Drive+at+La+Jolla+Scenic+Drive,+92037&daddr=gilman+drive+at+voigt+drive,+92037+to:Towne+Centre+Dr+%26+Eastgate+Mall,+San+Diego,+CA+92121+t o:La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Towne+Centre+Dr,+San+Diego,+CA&mra=pi&mrcr=2&sll=32.876343,-117.217469&sspn=0.02923,0.035105&ie=UTF8&ll=32.874722,-117.224207&spn=0.029231,0.035105&z=15&om=1). (3.2 miles)
taking Nobel Drive to the south (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=La+Jolla+Village+Drive+at+La+Jolla+Scenic+Drive,+92037&daddr=Gilman+Dr+%26+Villa+La+Jolla+Dr,+La+Jolla,+CA+92037+to:Nobel+Dr+%26+Towne+Centre+Dr,+San+Diego ,+CA+92122+to:La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Towne+Centre+Dr,+San+Diego,+CA&mra=pi&mrcr=2&sll=32.86769,-117.224665&sspn=0.029233,0.035105&ie=UTF8&z=15&om=1) (3.6 miles)Not only are the alternatives 50% to 100% longer, they're all significantly hillier and require more stops.

The course we used in the Road 1 course I taught a few weeks ago went along this road, between Gilman Drive and Lebon Drive, including past the section depicted in the photo depicted above. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=la+jolla+village+drive+at+villa+la+jolla,+92037&sll=32.841925,-117.26945&sspn=0.007022,0.011877&ie=UTF8&om=1&layer=c&cbll=32.872244,-117.227106&cbp=1,452.7489900255964,0.5,1&ll=32.873532,-117.228187&spn=0.007019,0.011877&z=17)

I don't buy the old wives' tale about cyclists, even relative novices, being better off on the "safer" alternatives, assuming they've learned and practice the well-known traffic cycling best practices that we discuss ad nauseum on this forum (and, of course, pay attention, which normally goes without saying but for Robert's sake it should be noted...).

[Helmet Head]

Suggesting alternate routes is a 'bicycle advocacy' cop out that I most often hear from motorists. One can debate the relative availability of alternate routes in different places and for different purposes of cycling, but the bottom line remains that cyclist must and should be able to go anywhere any and all the roads in a region reach. ...

:beer:


The one and only usefulness of 'alternate route' suggestion is for transportational cycling newbies who may need a little help at first to get out of the 'this is how I drove my car there it must be the only way' mindset.

Again, I might be wrong, and I hope Robert corrects me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any reason to believe he was referring only to newbies when he wrote the following:

If you find yourself [taking the lane] all the time, I believe the chance is good that something has gone gravely wrong with your approach. All of this has a lot to do with where you ride, and what kind of roads you need to use. Many cases of excess lane taking could be cured immediately with a change in route.

If you are riding where lane taking in front of faster traffic is a real necessity, then you are riding in a less than ideal situation. If maximizing safety is your true interest, you would do well to find a route with wide outside lanes, less traffic, or both. If no alternate routes are available, my condolences.

(my emphasis)

[Bekologist]

he's probably referring to sophmoric bicyclists like yourself, head, not the newbies.

remember, a motorist can violate your right of way even if you're riding in the middle of the lane or in the left lane edge for that matter. lane position without situational awareness is a weak safety.

[Helmet Head]

he's probably referring to sophmoric bicyclists like yourself, head, not the newbies.
Perhaps, Beck, and I look forward to him clarifying this, but remember, this is the guy who also wrote the following:
Cyclists today are left to navigate, like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. Yet, with the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge, urban cyclists can thrive [like rats, presumably] in this hostile environment. --Robert Hurst, The Art of Urban Cycling
Do you liken yourself to a rat in a sewer when riding your bike in traffic, Beck? I don't, and don't know of any self-respecting cyclist who does. But this is how Robert thinks -- that cyclists don't really belong on the road, but they can learn can to survive and even thrive, largely unnoticed and with minimal impact to the others -- and this is more evidence of Robert's view that cyclists are second-class (at best) users of the roads.


remember, a motorist can violate your right of way even if you're riding in the middle of the lane or in the left lane edge for that matter. lane position without situational awareness is a weak safety.
I've already addressed and refuted this point (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5527033&postcount=162). You've not addressed my response, so I see no point in doing anything other than repeating the refutation again.Beck, best practices developed to optimize safety by reducing risk are not about eliminating risk, they are about mitigating risk.

The fact that a driver of a vehicle can still pull out of a blind intersection and violate your right of way even if you're riding in the middle of the lane or on the left stripe is relevant only to refute the argument that riding further left eliminates one's risk to this happening. But no one is arguing that, of course, so making this point is moot.

The issue is whether habitually riding further left mitigates such risk to any significant degree by increasing sight lines, buffer zones, conspicuity and predictability.
I will add that to the extent that leftward lane positioning helps with conspicuity, even lane position without situational awareness can mitigate risk, because conspicuous lane positioning makes the cyclist less likely to be overlooked. I mean, if the motorist notices the cyclist and so stops in time, technically, in order to avoid collision, there is no need for the cyclist to even be aware of the motorist or his vehicle. I'm not advocating that, I'm just pointing out how lane position alone, without situational awareness on the part of the cyclist, can help mitigate cyclist risk of collision and thus make the cyclist safer. It's the same reason we wear bright clothing and use lights for conspicuity at night. This is particularly relevant given the propensity of all humans, including all cyclists, to be distracted from time to time. That means, sooner or later, you're not going to notice a potential hazard involving a motorist as soon as you might like. That's why we want to be as conspicuous as possible: bright clothes, lights/reflectors, and, yes, conspicuous leftward lane positioning.

[Helmet Head]

To summarize where we are in this thread, at least as far as I can tell...
The first few pages was a discussion mostly about Robert's depiction of vehicular-cycling in his book and on this forum, and how it compared/contrasted with the vehicular-cycling that is actually described by and taught by John Forester, the LAB, and LCIs all over this country. Of course I'm biased, but I thought it was made pretty clear that the moronic and mindless "vehicular-cycling" that Robert criticizes is very different from what is actually described and taught by those who advocate, teach and practice it.
Then we moved onto discussing vc best practices, and how Robert discounts their value. I think it was made quite clear that Mr. " I, not a big fan of principles" [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5522624&postcount=145)], is not a big fan of best practices of any stripe, much less vc best practices.
There has been an ongoing discussion related to the previous about whether lane positioning can significantly mitigate cyclist risk to collision independent of situational awareness. There is no disagreement on the point that lane positioning cannot eliminate risk, but that moot point seems to be the only one Robert and Beck can make in this discussion (see Beck's last post for one example).
And now we are exploring the broader question of whether Robert sees cyclist as users with rights to the road equal to those of drivers, as Forester does, or whether he sees us as second class users, more like rats in sewers.Personally, I think this is one the more interesting and fruitful discussions we've had. I've certainly found it to be very helpful. Of course, by saying that, I probably just jinxed it.

[RobertHurst]

...then I negotiate to move left. And this happens about 100-200' prior to the intersection/junction, depending on travel speed.

You're still thinking in terms of curvy suburban boulevards lined with palm trees. On the street in question, '100-200' prior to the intersection/junction' would be somewhere on the previous block (where there would be a street intersection 20 feet or so in front you and maybe even another driveway after that before you reach the intersection you're 'negotiating' about.) Smooth. Bek is correct here -- this is armchair cycling at its finest.

Robert

[RobertHurst]

Again, I find it disheartening that a noted cycling author supports the argument that cyclists should not be riding on certain surface roads simply because doing so may inconvenience motorists

I didn't say that, nor would I. Stop making stuff up.



EDIT: The sentiment expressed in Robert's words comes very close to endorsing the widely held notion that cyclists do not have equal rights to the surface streets, but are essentially second-class users who have a legal, moral or practical obligation to stay out of the way of the first-class users, the drivers of motor vehicles.

Nonsense! It seems to me that anyone with any actual experience would understand that cycling is the superior form of transportation, and that cyclists obviously have more freedom than any other class of road user. Cooperating with passing motorists won't change that.

It's a real red flag when people express such intense sensations of being threatened by something so benign as pulling over to let a faster vehicle pass. "I won't compromise my safety." What a bunch of nonsense. Learn to ride. Learn to get along with your fellow citizens. Passing motorists deserve our sympathy, stuck in their cars like that.

Robert

[RobertHurst]

I have to step in here for a second and squash that "alternate route" thinking.

I know that in many eastern cities, there are wonderful grids on which towns are built that may then offer the opportunity for "alternate routes;" however, in many western cities such alternate routes may not exist. Often in this town for instance, the ONLY road from one area to another is the ONLY way to get there. The geography of San Diego is such that a valley or canyon is crossed only in one place or the road only goes through the gap in such a canyon at one location. That arterial road that then carries all the motor traffic and is also the only road that cyclists use.

Use an "alternate route" just doesn't work.

Now if cyclist does in fact have the same rights to the road as motorists... then there should be no issue with cyclists taking a lane when no other way to get from point A to point B exists. Why can't motorists be trained to realize that? Cyclists are not out to "steal" the road from motorists... but we have every right to use it in the same manner as motorists. There should be no reason to have to specify a need for a road for a cyclist.

Our recent firestorm in San Diego again emphasized the "alternate route" issue... people were evacuated early in some cases as "the only road" would soon be inundated by fire... yet their house may have been miles away.

Thank you for the "condolences" regarding the "alternate route" issue, but seriously, this is the way things are here in the west...

Please don't suggest that lane taking is excess... it is simply the only choice. BTW wide roads may not exist either.


As I said, my condolences.

[RobertHurst]

Suggesting alternate routes is a 'bicycle advocacy' cop out that I most often hear from motorists. One can debate the relative availability of alternate routes in different places and for different purposes of cycling, bu the bottom line remains that cyclist must and should be able to go anywhere any and all the roads in a region reach. That means every route* must be a cycling route

Great... In the meantime, some roads are easier to ride on than others. This is a fascinating concept that could enhance the cycling experience for veterans and novices alike. Or not.

You prefer 'arterials,' and that is also route choice.

[RobertHurst]

To summarize where we are in this thread, at least as far as I can tell...
The first few pages was a discussion mostly about Robert's depiction of vehicular-cycling in his book and on this forum, and how it compared/contrasted with the vehicular-cycling that is actually described by and taught by John Forester, the LAB, and LCIs all over this country. Of course I'm biased, but I thought it was made pretty clear that the moronic and mindless "vehicular-cycling" that Robert criticizes is very different from what is actually described and taught by those who advocate, teach and practice it.
Then we moved onto discussing vc best practices, and how Robert discounts their value. I think it was made quite clear that Mr. " I, not a big fan of principles" [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5522624&postcount=145)], is not a big fan of best practices of any stripe, much less vc best practices.
There has been an ongoing discussion related to the previous about whether lane positioning can significantly mitigate cyclist risk to collision independent of situational awareness. There is no disagreement on the point that lane positioning cannot eliminate risk, but that moot point seems to be the only one Robert and Beck can make in this discussion (see Beck's last post for one example).
And now we are exploring the broader question of whether Robert sees cyclist as users with rights to the road equal to those of drivers, as Forester does, or whether he sees us as second class users, more like rats in sewers.Personally, I think this is one the more interesting and fruitful discussions we've had. I've certainly found it to be very helpful. Of course, by saying that, I probably just jinxed it.

Wow you really live in your own little world, don't you.

[RobertHurst]

Perhaps, Beck, and I look forward to him clarifying this, but remember, this is the guy who also wrote the following:

I didn't write that. Is that enough clarification for you.

and this is more evidence of Robert's view that cyclists are second-class (at best) users of the roads.

Holy crap. Why don't you just stuff it.

[urban_assault]

OMG...due to insomnia, I read this whole thread. Now I am more confused about how to ride my bike than ever before. ;)

Obviously, agreeing to disagree would mean the end to this particular forum. I suppose I'll just get out and ride my bike like I always have. I'll obey traffic laws a vast majority of the time and the rest of the time I'll just try and keep myself out of danger any way I can. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

I didn't write that. Is that enough clarification for you.
My apologies. It's a quote from the back cover of your book, presumably from the publisher. Let's just say there is no way in hell that Forester would allow cyclists to be likened to rats in sewers on the back of his book. That is a difference between you two.


The Forester paradigm: cyclists should act like drivers of vehicles.
The Hurst paradigm: cyclists should act like rats in sewers.

Whether you like it or not, it's no mistake that the rats in sewers paradigm for cyclists was used on the backcover of your book. It was chosen because it's consistent with the view that you convey throughout your book, however subtle and even unrecognized by you that it may be.

[noisebeam]

You prefer 'arterials,' and that is also route choice.
Every driver or every kind of vehicle makes a route choice and, with the exception of those drivers who consider themselves secondary users, every driver making that choice does so for the benefit of themselves.

Al

[Helmet Head]

OMG...due to insomnia, I read this whole thread. Now I am more confused about how to ride my bike than ever before. ;)

Obviously, agreeing to disagree would mean the end to this particular forum. I suppose I'll just get out and ride my bike like I always have. I'll obey traffic laws a vast majority of the time and the rest of the time I'll just try and keep myself out of danger any way I can. :rolleyes:
If you have not read Effective Cycling and The Art of Urban Cycling, I suspect this thread would be hard to understand.

[Helmet Head]

Holy crap. Why don't you just stuff it.
Did I hit a nerve? Read your own book, Robert. You say cycling is a superior mode, just like a rat might say his way of life is superior to that of humans. And perhaps from the rat's POV his life is superior to ours, but from the human POV, it's obviously not.

But when it comes to motorists and cyclists - we're all humans. Neither mode is "superior" to the other. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If I need to be in L.A. in a couple of hours, I'm going to drive my car.

But on surface streets our rights are equal, and you don't convey that critical concept in your book very well, if you do at all. If anything, you downplay it. And whether you realize it or not, the implication of much of your writing is that our rights on surface streets are secondary to those of motorists. That is consistent with the view that cyclists are second-class users (in terms of rights). I understand you justify this downplaying with rationalizing that you don't think cyclists should depend on having equal rights, because if motorists don't recognize those rights, they are of little use to us. But what you miss is that if you don't act as if you have equal rights, then you won't be treated as if you do (and this is true in just about any human social interaction, not just traffic).

So, I think Forester's approach is much more sound: act like a vehicle driver, act in accordance with your equal rights and responsibilities, assert them in order to at least give them a chance to recognize them (but don't be rude about it either), but always be prepared for those rare exceptions who don't recognize your equal rights, or, more likely, those who simply don't notice you.

Anyone who regularly acts like a vehicle driver is accustomed to being treated like a vehicle driver, and what I'm saying will make perfect sense to them (you know who you are). But for any cyclist who regularly acts like a sewer rat - like someone who doesn't really belong on the roads with motorists - this idea that those who don't recognize cyclist rights are rare is going to seem preposterous, because in their experience, they see it all the time. What they don't realize is that this is because they don't act like drivers in the first place.

[urban_assault]

If you have not read Effective Cycling and The Art of Urban Cycling, I suspect this thread would be hard to understand.

I was kidding about being confused. I have perused both books at B&N without purchasing them. ( My apologies to the authors.) I do understand the views that both books express and the points that each author makes. I do use tactics and philosophies stated in both books, which is the same way I was riding before reading the books.

IMO, the incessant debates over who is right or wrong and the attacks on each other's logic and reasoning is silly and confusing to many readers of the forums. Of course I do know it will not end any time soon. Since any ground travel other than with the automobile is marginalized in the United States, I commend both authors for trying to make things better for cyclists.

If I was asked, I would recommend that cyclists read both books, form their own opinion, and ride in the manner that suits them. Yes, this will result in inconsistent riding, ( I just heard HH sigh heavily and shake his head) but until laws are enforced consistently and drivers drive consistently many cyclists will do this in order to feel safe.

[rando]

if I EVER see a sewer rat on a bicycle, I will give up drinking. maybe.

[genec]

Perhaps, Beck, and I look forward to him clarifying this, but remember, this is the guy who also wrote the following:
Cyclists today are left to navigate, like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. Yet, with the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge, urban cyclists can thrive [like rats, presumably] in this hostile environment. --Robert Hurst, The Art of Urban Cycling
Do you liken yourself to a rat in a sewer when riding your bike in traffic, Beck? I don't, and don't know of any self-respecting cyclist who does. But this is how Robert thinks -- that cyclists don't really belong on the road, but they can learn can to survive and even thrive, largely unnoticed and with minimal impact to the others -- and this is more evidence of Robert's view that cyclists are second-class (at best) users of the roads.


Not a rat, but certainly like some sort of road warrior or rebel and a bit like Casper the ghost. (the latter due primarily to being so often overlooked that it seems like I am invisible) So sort of a cross between Spike bike and Casper actually.

I certainly do not feel that motorists treat me as an equal... so there is a touch of that "second class citizenry..." and "unnoticed," heck, that is the last thing I want. :D

Now somewhere I remember reading about how the best cyclists are like ninjas... slipping between the cars and on and off the streets without notice, nearly a shadow in the traffic scene. (of course it was written better than that)

But as far as a rat... well sometimes it seems like some motorists might be shooing us away... :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

I was kidding about being confused. I have perused both books at B&N without purchasing them. ( My apologies to the authors.) I do understand the views that both books express and the points that each author makes. I do use tactics and philosophies stated in both books, which is the same way I was riding before reading the books.
When I first read Effective Cycling, my reaction was similar: I already (mostly) do that. Little did I realize how key the mostly was, because seemingly subtle differences in behavior can make significant differences in traffic, especially in how motorists react to you, treat you, and how soon they do it. I didn't realize it until I decided to try to do it "by the book", mostly on a lark, just to see what would happen if, for example, I actually used destination positioning at every intersection. Soon I picked up the habit to always look back at every intersection approach, and instantly motorists were reacting to me differently, treating my like a driver rather than like a rat.

[Bekologist]

hh ,except using 'destination positioning at every intersection' is fantastical armchair bicycling and doesn't reflect reality of actually bicycling, dude.

[The Human Car]

Diane, pass the popcorn please.

Wow, just totally unbelievable.

[pj7]

I dunno, rats just might be superior to us.
They eat when and what they want. No one tells them where to take a ****. They have nonremorseful sex. and could care less about what is going on in here on a nightly basis.
This is not good? :D
Did I hit a nerve? Read your own book, Robert. You say cycling is a superior mode, just like a rat might say his way of life is superior to that of humans. And perhaps from the rat's POV his life is superior to ours, but from the human POV, it's obviously not.

But when it comes to motorists and cyclists - we're all humans. Neither mode is "superior" to the other. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If I need to be in L.A. in a couple of hours, I'm going to drive my car.

But on surface streets our rights are equal, and you don't convey that critical concept in your book very well, if you do at all. If anything, you downplay it. And whether you realize it or not, the implication of much of your writing is that our rights on surface streets are secondary to those of motorists. That is consistent with the view that cyclists are second-class users (in terms of rights). I understand you justify this downplaying with rationalizing that you don't think cyclists should depend on having equal rights, because if motorists don't recognize those rights, they are of little use to us. But what you miss is that if you don't act as if you have equal rights, then you won't be treated as if you do (and this is true in just about any human social interaction, not just traffic).

So, I think Forester's approach is much more sound: act like a vehicle driver, act in accordance with your equal rights and responsibilities, assert them in order to at least give them a chance to recognize them (but don't be rude about it either), but always be prepared for those rare exceptions who don't recognize your equal rights, or, more likely, those who simply don't notice you.

Anyone who regularly acts like a vehicle driver is accustomed to being treated like a vehicle driver, and what I'm saying will make perfect sense to them (you know who you are). But for any cyclist who regularly acts like a sewer rat - like someone who doesn't really belong on the roads with motorists - this idea that those who don't recognize cyclist rights are rare is going to seem preposterous, because in their experience, they see it all the time. What they don't realize is that this is because they don't act like drivers in the first place.

[pj7]

Robert, you're like that drunken sarcastic uncle I used to have. Which is a good thing, he made some great plum wine.
If you're even in the Detroit area I'll have to buy you a beer. That is if you don't get raped and killed first.... or killed then raped. ;)

[RobertHurst]

Did I hit a nerve? Read your own book, Robert. You say cycling is a superior mode, just like a rat might say his way of life is superior to that of humans. And perhaps from the rat's POV his life is superior to ours, but from the human POV, it's obviously not.

But when it comes to motorists and cyclists - we're all humans. Neither mode is "superior" to the other. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If I need to be in L.A. in a couple of hours, I'm going to drive my car.

But on surface streets our rights are equal, and you don't convey that critical concept in your book very well, if you do at all. If anything, you downplay it. And whether you realize it or not, the implication of much of your writing is that our rights on surface streets are secondary to those of motorists. That is consistent with the view that cyclists are second-class users (in terms of rights). I understand you justify this downplaying with rationalizing that you don't think cyclists should depend on having equal rights, because if motorists don't recognize those rights, they are of little use to us. But what you miss is that if you don't act as if you have equal rights, then you won't be treated as if you do (and this is true in just about any human social interaction, not just traffic).

So, I think Forester's approach is much more sound: act like a vehicle driver, act in accordance with your equal rights and responsibilities, assert them in order to at least give them a chance to recognize them (but don't be rude about it either), but always be prepared for those rare exceptions who don't recognize your equal rights, or, more likely, those who simply don't notice you.

Anyone who regularly acts like a vehicle driver is accustomed to being treated like a vehicle driver, and what I'm saying will make perfect sense to them (you know who you are). But for any cyclist who regularly acts like a sewer rat - like someone who doesn't really belong on the roads with motorists - this idea that those who don't recognize cyclist rights are rare is going to seem preposterous, because in their experience, they see it all the time. What they don't realize is that this is because they don't act like drivers in the first place.



'Equal rights' with motorists would be a big step down for me. But I wish you good luck in your quest.

Robert

[Helmet Head]

'Equal rights' with motorists would be a big step down for me. But I wish you good luck in your quest.

Robert
The rat analogy has more steam than I thought it would.

[Bekologist]

idiotic. head, adding those 3 words to the Hurst dustjacket changes the meaning. you deliberately misrepresent; you should get a clue. slanderous, dude.

A clue to helmet head, anyone? or is he really that dense?

[Helmet Head]

idiotic. head, adding those 3 words to the Hurst dustjacket changes the meaning. you deliberately misrepresent; you should get a clue. slanderous, dude.

A clue to helmet head, anyone? or is he really that dense?
Adding which 3 words? This is directly from the back cover:Cyclists today are left to navigate, like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. (emphasis added)The likening of cyclists to rats in a sewer is an astute observation on the back of Robert's book, for it frames his whole approach quite nicely, and in stark contrast to that of Forester.

Vehicular cyclists have long observed that in order to be treated like drivers of vehicles, we need to act like drivers of vehicles; it's no guarantee of driver-like treatment, but it makes it much more common, and the opposite is also true: if you don't act as a vehicle driver, then you're very unlikely to be treated as one. But it must be very difficult to think and act like a driver of a vehicle when you feel the environment is so hostile to you, that you liken yourself to a rat in a sewer.

The lessons in Robert's book appear to be based on a paradigm that sees cyclists as rats in sewers, where with "the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge [described in Robert's book], urban cyclists can learn to thrive in this hostile environment" (quote from the back cover of The Art of Urban Cycling).

Robert's book really does impart only a bit of knowledge, and focuses mainly on attitude. Note that Robert's obsession with vigilance and self-responsibility totally fits the rat analogy (rats are very vigilant and, so far as we know, blame no one but themselves for anything that happens to them). I've praised that aspect of the book in the past, and continue to do so, but there's not much else of value in the book. Even the back cover essentially admits he imparts only a "bit" of knowledge to his readers.

Cyclists that act like rats in sewers, rather than like drivers of vehicles, should expect to be treated like rats in sewers, and certainly should not be surprised that they are rarely if ever treated like drivers of vehicles.

It is likely to be true that the majority of cyclists can identify with hostile environment/rat in sewer paradigm. But vehicular cycling is about smashing that paradigm and leaving it far behind (replacing it with the vc paradigm), while Robert's book is about exploiting it.

[flipped4bikes]

198 posts. Well 199 now. Can we all agree that this is stupid ranting? Wait, we can argue over that too!

[genec]

Adding which 3 words? This is directly from the back cover:Cyclists today are left to navigate, like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. (emphasis added)The likening of cyclists to rats in a sewer is an astute observation on the back of Robert's book, for it frames his whole approach quite nicely, and in stark contrast to that of Forester.

Vehicular cyclists have long observed that in order to be treated like drivers of vehicles, we need to act like drivers of vehicles; it's no guarantee of driver-like treatment, but it makes it much more common, and the opposite is also true: if you don't act as a vehicle driver, then you're very unlikely to be treated as one. But it must be very difficult to think and act like a driver of a vehicle when you feel the environment is so hostile to you, that you liken yourself to a rat in a sewer.

The lessons in Robert's book appear to be based on a paradigm that sees cyclists as rats in sewers, where with "the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge [described in Robert's book], urban cyclists can learn to thrive in this hostile environment" (quote from the back cover of The Art of Urban Cycling).

Robert's book really does impart only a bit of knowledge, and focuses mainly on attitude. Note that Robert's obsession with vigilance and self-responsibility totally fits the rat analogy (rats are very vigilant and, so far as we know, blame no one but themselves for anything that happens to them). I've praised that aspect of the book in the past, and continue to do so, but there's not much else of value in the book. Even the back cover essentially admits he imparts only a "bit" of knowledge to his readers.

Cyclists that act like rats in sewers, rather than like drivers of vehicles, should expect to be treated like rats in sewers, and certainly should not be surprised that they are rarely if ever treated like drivers of vehicles.

It is likely to be true that the majority of cyclists can identify with hostile environment/rat in sewer paradigm. But vehicular cycling is about smashing that paradigm and leaving it far behind (replacing it with the vc paradigm), while Robert's book is about exploiting it.

Could it be that Robert's comment is meant to convey that is how motorists treat cyclists... NOT how cyclists act?

[Helmet Head]

Could it be that Robert's comment is meant to convey that is how motorists treat cyclists... NOT how cyclists act?
That's almost certain, Gene. But paradigms work in both directions, whether that's the explicit intent, or not. There is plenty of evidence that shows how one views the world affects how one behaves, and how one behaves affects how he or she is treated. This is why self-esteem is so important.

Viewing a given environment as hostile is, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at our mideast foreign policy for an example of that. Look at Beck's riding experiences as another [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=357713)], [2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=350927)].

Pick someone down the hall at random. Now imagine them to be hostile. Seriously. How good an actor are you? Convince yourself that that person is hostile to you. Now go into her or his office. What will your body language be? What will your tone be? What will you say? If this person is astute at all, he or she will detect your attitude, and that in and of itself is likely to make them feel and act hostile towards you. This is fundamental primal stuff of human nature, and, indeed, of animal nature.

Similarly, if a cyclist views the traffic environment as hostile, he is likely to act as if the environment is hostile, and those in traffic are that much more likely to treat him in a hostile manner.

That's what I mean by vehicular-cycling being about leaving that rats-in-a-hostile-environment paradigm far behind. Vehicular-cycling is based on the opposite assumption: that while there are rare JAM exceptions, the traffic environment overall is not hostile to cyclists. That's a huge difference between vehicular-cycling and how most cyclists view the traffic environment, and how Robert writes about it.

[genec]

That's almost certain, Gene. But paradigms work in both directions, whether that's the explicit intent, or not. There is plenty of evidence that shows how one views the world affects how one behaves, and how one behaves affects how he or she is treated. This is why self-esteem is so important.

Viewing a given environment as hostile is, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at our mideast foreign policy for an example of that. Look at Beck's riding experiences as another [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=357713)], [2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=350927)].

Pick someone down the hall at random. Now imagine them to be hostile. Seriously. How good an actor are you? Convince yourself that that person is hostile to you. Now go into her or his office. What will your body language be? What will your tone be? What will you say? If this person is astute at all, he or she will detect your attitude, and that in and of itself is likely to make them feel hostile towards you. This is fundamental primal stuff of human nature, and, indeed, of animal nature.

Similarly, if a cyclist views the traffic environment as hostile, he is likely to act as if the environment is hostile, and those in traffic are that much more likely to treat him in a hostile manner.

That's what I mean by vehicular-cycling being about leaving that paradigm far behind. Vehicular-cycling is based on the opposite assumption: that while there are rare JAM exceptions, the traffic environment overall is not hostile to cyclists. That's a huge difference between vehicular-cycling and how most cyclists view the traffic environment, and how Robert writes about it.

Uh... the only problem is that many motorists feel the general driving environment itself is hostile.

[Helmet Head]

Uh... the only problem is that most motorists feel the general driving environment itself is hostile.
Speak for yourself, Gene. I, for one, recognize that the vehicular traffic system is, among other things, amazingly cooperative, and I try to leverage that aspect of it, whether I'm driving my car or riding my bike.

EDIT: Besides, I don't know how most motorists feel with respect to the traffic environment being hostile or not. I do know that the vast majority doesn't act hostile, and that's all that matters to me.

[genec]

Speak for yourself, Gene. I, for one, recognize that it is an amazingly cooperative system, and I try to leverage that aspect of it, whether I'm driving my car or riding my bike.

EDIT: Besides, I don't know how most motorists feel with respect to the traffic environment being hostile or not. I do know that the vast majority doesn't act that way, and that's all that matters to me.

I just did an informal poll in my office... I asked simply if folks felt that highway and surface street driving was friendly or hostile.

The response was about 50-50.

I don't know about the "vast majority" you mention... considering that many folks find rush hour frustrating.

[Helmet Head]

If all that is true, and I'm approaching an intersection or junction, and the speed or spacing of overtaking traffic is not such that a possible right turn can be ruled out, then I negotiate to move left. And this happens about 100-200' prior to the intersection/junction, depending on travel speed.

You're still thinking in terms of curvy suburban boulevards lined with palm trees. On the street in question, '100-200' prior to the intersection/junction' would be somewhere on the previous block (where there would be a street intersection 20 feet or so in front you and maybe even another driveway after that before you reach the intersection you're 'negotiating' about.) Smooth. Bek is correct here -- this is armchair cycling at its finest.

Robert
You're taking my words out of context. In the reply to Bek, I was writing in general, not about the specific street you were riding on, the name of which (and nearest cross-street to the blind alley in question) I'm still waiting to learn.

On a road with frequent junctions and intersections closer than 100-200' (a typical residential lot is 50-75' wide), so if 100-200' prior "would be somewhere on the previous block, that's block length of 2-4 houses, but whatever..., I would take the lane and only move aside when traffic was slowed behind me and where it was safe and reasonable to pull aside. Those conditions were not present at the time of your collision.

[Helmet Head]

I just did an informal poll in my office... I asked simply if folks felt that highway and surface street driving was friendly or hostile.

The response was about 50-50.

I don't know about the "vast majority" you mention... considering that many folks find rush hour frustrating.
Again, how they feel about it is irrelevant to me. What is important is how they act, and how they act, by and large, is not hostile. When I assume a cooperative environment, and act accordingly, I am almost universally treated in a cooperative manner. When I assume a hostile environment, and act accordingly, I am treated with hostility much more often.