I had a run in with a ragin' cager, and it made the news

[Brian Ratliff]

You need to reread Robert's book, or at least that chapter. The whole point of hoarding responsibility is the value of doing so before disaster strikes, not after, "when you are safe in your own home". The whole point is to avoid the incident in the first place. The application in this case is to not blame the driver, not challenge him, and to back off. To take responsibility in such a situation means to take measures that defuse matters, and avoid behavior that escalates the rage.

There is no evidence of Beck doing anything to defuse matters. The fact that the situation persisted for several streets after the bridge, indicates quite the opposite. And Beck has had plenty of opportunity to correct us on this.

Ah, but you learn afterwards. That's why he tells you not to blame the other person (to blame someone, you must have something to blame them of, right?), and why he coaches to "love road rash". All in the same vein. You do what you can do to avoid incidents, and once an incident occurs, you learn from it rather than going off blaming the world.

I've been riding a bike on streets for almost 40 years! Why you persist with this ridiculous newbie argument about me is beyond me, but it's moot anyway. As I've explained countless times, experience only has relevance in these debates when someone makes a claim that is based on his or her personal experience. I try to avoid doing that precisely because doing so requires others to take my word for whatever it is I'm basing on my experience.

Anyway, since you raised the issue, of course, I've felt like commuting on city streets on a bicycle is sometimes like fighting a war. I've felt that way about traffic while driving a car. But that's all history for me now, since I've adopted defensive driving principles and attitudes in my driving and cycling. That's the point. And that's the point Robert makes in much of his book too, by the way, in case you missed it.

As you once said, this is the impression I have of you. The advice you give, the topics you write about, all suggest you are a noob with little experience in traffic cycling. I cannot be blamed for the impressions that you have impressed on me. If you have 40 years of experience (which, I take, you are counting everything up to and including your experiences when you were less than 10 years old), you don't show it. You claimed at one time that you picked up vehicular cycling, what it must be about 4 years ago now, in order to learn how to make a left turn at some complicated intersection. What this tells me is that prior to 4 years ago, you were not riding much in traffic at all. If you cycling skills were so deficient that picking up a book brought on a such revolutionary change in technique and worldview, then those previous years don't get to count.

I dunno. You give me the impression that you are a noob. You express incredularity at things that get not much more than a yawn and a nod of agreement from other's here. You make statements that point to deficiencies in experience in cycling in inner city environments. Moreover, the biggest mark of a noob, you tried to make the argument that experience had no role to play in establishing credibility. Noobs make this argument because they are forced to, seeing as they have little experience.

I have also followed your chainguard correspondance. You are treated as a noob there as well by many of the obviously well seasoned traffic cyclists, with your theories regarding mirror useage and lane positioning. Specifically with your advocacy of a strategy of taking up the middle of the lane while scanning backwards every 4-5 seconds and getting out of the way of cars when they come up. That you have significant chances to practice this theory tells me it was mostly worked out during recreational rides on roads with little traffic. If you had significant experience cycling on heavily trafficed roads you would know that, while your technique might have some merit, it has almost zero application in commuting applications.

Eh, read into this what you may. You've said explicitly that you cannot be held responsible for the impressions which are impressed upon you by other members here - in fact, I think you told this to Mr. Hurst to his face. I guess I cannot either.

[Allister]

f you have 40 years of experience (which, I take, you are counting everything up to and including your experiences when you were less than 10 years old), you don't show it. You claimed at one time that you picked up vehicular cycling, what it must be about 4 years ago now, in order to learn how to make a left turn at some complicated intersection. What this tells me is that prior to 4 years ago, you were not riding much in traffic at all. If you cycling skills were so deficient that picking up a book brought on a such revolutionary change in technique and worldview, then those previous years don't get to count.


LOL. Man, that's hilarious. It took Head 36 years to figure out how to make a left turn? ROTFLMAO. Talk about a slow learner.

[Helmet Head]

It is inappropriate from you, HH, because you expect your advice to override the experience of the person who was actually there.
You're twisting my words again Brian. What a waste of electrons. I have no expectation for my advice to override Beck's experience. Where do you get such an idea? Please, show me the words of mine that form the basis for this wild accusation. For crying out loud.


And when the OP questions your take on things, or contradicts one of your assumptions, you accuse him of hiding something or making stuff up or escalating the situation or some other such non-sense rather than backing down and having a simple conversation. You have a most annoying habit of assuming that your 3rd or 4th or 5th hand take on things are more factually correct than the first hand description from the person present.

Thanks for sharing your impression of what has occured. I note the lack of any specific quotes to explain where this is coming from.

Are you talking about the exchange where I asked whether Beck really meant to say the guy deliberately tried to hit him, and he insisted that was the case? You know, where Allister later chastised me for taking him literally? If a cyclist banging on a window of a vehicle driven by someone who he really believes is trying to kill him does not strike you as incredible, I don't know what else to say. If you're not talking about that, then what are you talking about? Please be specific, and not talk in vague generalities like you usually do.


Yes, HH, my beef is primarily with you giving unsolicited advice. You are antagonistic and your approach to "giving advice" is more of a power play to project yourself as the expert that you think you are.
Now you're a mind reader? Well, if that's what you think I'm doing, or what I'm motivated by, no wonder you find my posts to be annoying! But, it's your choice to interpret my words from that angle, and I can't do anything about that, except to note that I find it odd that you, or anyone else, would make such a choice. What an utter waste of time that would be.

As I've said before, I have ideas. Some I've adopted from others, others I've invented myself, and still others are integrations of all of the above. In addition to the ideas themselves, there is the issue of how they are presented in writing. I enjoy "testing" ideas, and their presentations, here. I obviously enjoy it quite a bit. One of the ways I test these ideas, and their presentations, is to challenge stuff that is written here that contradicts them. It's about the ideas, and their presentations, not about me. If you look at my posts at random, I think you'll find that I write much more about these ideas, and very little about myself. In this thread the main ideas I've been "testing" are:
Road rage can usually be controlled by behavior that defuses, rather than escalates, the situation.
Taking full responsibility in the way Robert Hurst intends, includes taking the responsibility to defuse potential road rage escalations, no matter how much the other is to blame.
Cyclists like Bekologist often do not take full responsibility for their destiny in traffic, in the way that Hurst intends, and tend to blame cagers quite a bit.I think you'll find most if not all of my posts in this thread to be consistent with testing these ideas, and with experimenting with various ways to present them.

But if you want to believe it's about some kind of power trip on my part, that says much more about you than about me.

[Helmet Head]

LOL. Man, that's hilarious. It took Head 36 years to figure out how to make a left turn? ROTFLMAO. Talk about a slow learner.
No, Allister. What I learned how to do after many decades of riding was how to negotiate across multiple lanes of fast/high-volume traffic in order to make a left turn. Most of the regular commuters on this street either ride on the sidewalk, or in the curb pan. If they want to turn left, they pull over and wait for a gap. I've never seen anyone create a gap in the traffic through negotiation the way that I do now.

[Allister]

I've never seen anyone create a gap in the traffic through negotiation the way that I do now.

Not even your students?

[bkrownd]

Seriously, HH, there are situations where people **** with you. And you feel like you are fighting for your life. Indeed, sometimes you are. Hording responsiblity comes later, when you are safe in your own home, glad that the day is done.

If you've never felt that commuting on city streets on a bicycle is sometimes like fighting a war, then you don't have the experience necessary to connect with some more seasoned bicycle commuters and messengers. We aren't lying about our experiences. And we don't need a noob double guessing our actions.

Sometimes you do have to fight back physically, because if you don't people will assume they can walk (drive) all over you and naturally become more bold and blatant in their attacks. Nobody gives a hoot about the law, but they do tend to value their paint jobs.

[Helmet Head]

Ah, but you learn afterwards. That's why he tells you not to blame the other person (to blame someone, you must have something to blame them of, right?), and why he coaches to "love road rash". All in the same vein. You do what you can do to avoid incidents, and once an incident occurs, you learn from it rather than going off blaming the world.
You have a completely different understanding of what Robert tried to convey in that chapter than I do. And talk about taking things out of context... the whole "love road rash" thing is in a separate section. The purpose of adopting the sef-responsibility attitude is all about avoiding crashes, not about learning from them. I think you have your wires crossed.


As you once said, this is the impression I have of you. The advice you give, the topics you write about, all suggest you are a noob with little experience in traffic cycling. I cannot be blamed for the impressions that you have impressed on me.

Fair enough.


If you have 40 years of experience (which, I take, you are counting everything up to and including your experiences when you were less than 10 years old), you don't show it.

Then you don't look for it. If you looked at my posts honestly, you'd realize that there is no way a noob would know enough to write the way I do. Do you really believe a noob would have enough knowledge and understanding to hold Robert's Hurst interest here for two years? That would be quite the feat. :rolleyes:


You claimed at one time that you picked up vehicular cycling, what it must be about 4 years ago now, in order to learn how to make a left turn at some complicated intersection. What this tells me is that prior to 4 years ago, you were not riding much in traffic at all.

Suit yourself, but that's quite a leap. There are plenty of people with decades of experience who still struggle with left turns in some situations. What many of them have learned from their experiences, is to slow down and/or pull over to wait for a gap, or do a 2-step left turn. The 2-step left turn was not an option for me, since there was no traffic signal, so I'd have to wait for the gap anyway. I got tired of waiting for the gap, so I solicited help on the local advocacy list, on which some of the most experienced cyclists in San Diego participate. No one had any kind of concrete help, except to read Effective Cycling. That's where I learned not how to make a left turn (talk about twising words), but how to negotiate for a gap in fast/busy traffic, a skill that even many very experienced cyclists don't have.


If your cycling skills were so deficient that picking up a book brought on a such revolutionary change in technique and worldview, then those previous years don't get to count.
Interesting, except the way I ride today is a revolutionary change from the way most experienced cyclists I see ride. So there experience doesn't count too?


I dunno. You give me the impression that you are a noob. You express incredularity at things that get not much more than a yawn and a nod of agreement from other's here.

Well, me being a noob is one possible explanation for why I see things that you and many others do not. Another explanation is that I see connections and implications that you and many others miss, due to a deeper understanding of some of the underling issues and principles at work.


You make statements that point to deficiencies in experience in cycling in inner city environments.
Such as?


Moreover, the biggest mark of a noob, you tried to make the argument that experience had no role to play in establishing credibility. Noobs make this argument because they are forced to, seeing as they have little experience.

I can't believe how many times I've explained this to you, and you still can't understand it. I've never argued that experience has no role to play in establishing credibility. That would be absurd. How you could misunderstand my position on this to this extent, after multiple explanations, is beyond me. But if nothing else, it provides a hint as why you might not see things that I do...

Please, pay attention to this: What I've argued is that the credibility of the person making an argument has no relevance when the argument being put forward does not depend on the credibility of the person making the argument. Why can you not grasp this?

This is why I try to base on my arguments on premises that I believe reasonable people with a reasonable level of traffic cycling experience can accept without taking my word for it, or having to find me credible. I don't make this argument because I lack experience. I make this argument because I don't want to have to establish experience and credibility with each and every person who reads my posts. Ideally, I would like to be able to create a new anonymous id for each post I make, so that nobody would know or could assume anything about the person making the post. The words should speak for themselves, objectively. And they should be just as persuasive, or not, independent of whether I, you, Beck, Gene, Diane, Robert Hurst, John Forester, Patc, Steven Goodridge, Allister, Joe jack, Blue Order or AnonyousOfTheDay wrote them.

That's the ideal. That's what I strive for, when I post, and when I read posts. In reality, we all use the English language a little bit differently. We all use different meanings for different terms, and it is inevitable that we learn something about each other, and interpret each other's words accordingly. So you and Robert might write the same words, but I might interpret them differently, knowing what I now about each of you. That's the reality, and that's fine. But that's mostly about semantics, which is imporant in order for us to be able to understand what the other intends to convey, but it has nothing to do with putting faith in the experience of someone else.

And that's another thing. In the end, we all must be responsible for ourselves, for our own safety. I would not take anything anyone else says on faith, not to the point of basing my safety on it, and I would not expect anyone to take anything I say on faith. I mean, one might say, "when I tried this, my experience was that", and the rest of us can try it ourselves. But for something like that, the amount of experience the person making that claim has is irrelevant. Whether he's a noob, or a 300k messenger, before I, for one, believe it, I'm going to try it for myself.

Finally, because no human is infallible, credibility can't matter much. Someone with poor credibility might get it right from time to time, and someone with good credibility might be wrong from time to time. So whether the claim comes from someone with high or low credibility, the only relevance their credibility and experience may have is with respect to the likelihood of them being right. But if you're going to test and evaluate some specific claim that someone makes, based on your experience anyway, and since they may or may not be right, what difference does their credibility and experience make? I just can't understand your hangup with credibility and experience of others. The only experience that should matter to you is yours.

Does that make any sense to you? Will you now never think again that I have argued that experience has no role to play in establishing credibility?


I have also followed your chainguard correspondance. You are treated as a noob there as well by many of the obviously well seasoned traffic cyclists, with your theories regarding mirror useage and lane positioning.

The whole mirror thing is very contentious in VC advocacy circles, largely because Forester wrote in Effective Cycling many years ago that claims of their value are overdone.


Specifically with your advocacy of a strategy of taking up the middle of the lane while scanning backwards every 4-5 seconds and getting out of the way of cars when they come up. That you have significant chances to practice this theory tells me it was mostly worked out during recreational rides on roads with little traffic. If you had significant experience cycling on heavily trafficed roads you would know that, while your technique might have some merit, it has almost zero application in commuting applications.

I've been using that technique successfully almost on a daily basis in heavy/fast commuter traffic for over two years. But, again, my experience should not matter to you. There are relatively long distances between traffic signals on my commute, and so relatively long gaps of no traffic. I have also found that most cyclists don't pay nearly as much attention to from-behind traffic as I am, and are simply unaware at how often the condition of no fsdt occurs, particularly if they don't have a mirror. I don't expect you to take my word for it, I also expect you to not dismiss my claim out of hand. This is something you can only verify by trying it yourself. And if you don't find it works for you, you won't be the first one.

[Helmet Head]

Not even your students?
I've never taken students on that left turn (I was not talking in general, I was talking about that specific left turn):

Most of the regular commuters on this street either ride on the sidewalk, or in the curb pan. If they want to turn left, they pull over and wait for a gap. I've never seen anyone create a gap in the traffic through negotiation the way that I do now.

[chipcom]

HH, please remember that a lot of us have actually been around here awhile and remember the things you have written.

[Helmet Head]

HH, please remember that a lot of us have actually been around here awhile and remember the things you have written.
What one thinks he remembers about what has been written is irrelevant. What has actually been written is what matters, and that's easy enough to verify either way.

[chipcom]

What one thinks he remembers about what has been written is irrelevant. What has actually been written is what matters, and that's easy enough to verify either way.

We've covered this ground before too, we all know you have edited your posts in the past and probably spend as much time doing so now as you do modifying your wiki definition of vc. What has been written by you is only as accurate as the last edit. You can try to reinvent yourself to the noobs, but it don't work on all of us crazy uncles in your attic.

[randya]

and you do the searching and you take the quotes out of context. got it

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

We've covered this ground before too, we all know you have edited your posts in the past and probably spend as much time doing so now as you do modifying your wiki definition of vc. What has been written by you is only as accurate as the last edit. You can try to reinvent yourself to the noobs, but it don't work on all of us crazy uncles in your attic.
I believe an admin can tell you when the last time any post was edited, and perhaps even what was edited, should you suspect that is the case.

[Allister]

Well, me being a noob is one possible explanation for why I see things that you and many others do not. Another explanation is that I see connections and implications that you and many others miss, due to a deeper understanding of some of the underling issues and principles at work.

I'm gonna stick to the former. Verbosity does not equal 'deep understanding'.

Please, pay attention to this: What I've argued is that the credibility of the person making an argument has no relevance when the argument being put forward does not depend on the credibility of the person making the argument. Why can you not grasp this?

Why can you not grasp that we understand what you're trying to say, but it still doesn't mean it's correct. Credibility of the source is entirely relevant. Every time you make another faulty argument, your credibilty goes down.

Perhaps you're unfamilar with the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

I mean, one might say, "when I tried this, my experience was that", and the rest of us can try it ourselves. But for something like that, the amount of experience the person making that claim has is irrelevant. Whether he's a noob, or a 300k messenger, before I, for one, believe it, I'm going to try it for myself.

Of course the amount of experience is relevant. The more the experience, the greater the store of situations one has encountered and developed a strategy to handle. You don't get that from a book, Serge. If you haven't experienced a similar situation to something that might be described here, your knowledge of how to deal with it is second hand at best. Theories are a starting point for experience, but if you never apply them, they remain as nothing but theories.

That's the impression I get from you, Serge, you're dishing out second hand knowledge without ever having actually experienced the situation or something similar yourself. If you can't describe how YOU have learned to deal with something when it happened to YOU in the real world, your advice is more or less worthless.

Yes, any advice from this forum should be tested on the road before deciding if it has merit or not, but if the source lacks credibility, one is less inclined to try it out in the first place, especially if others, with perhaps more credibility/experience offer conflicting advice.

...no human is infallible,...

Except the Pope, obviously. ;)

[Helmet Head]

and you do the searching and you take the quotes out of context. got it

:rolleyes:
That too can be verified. That's the beauty of a forum like this.

But what is at issue here is not what others have written, but what I have allegedly written. And if you or anyone else thinks I can effectively manage the thousands of posts I've made to take out "incriminating" evidence of anything someone in the future might accuse me of saying and that I will want to deny, you have a wild imagination.

[chipcom]

<yawn> as I said, we've covered all this ground before. Please continue with your attempted reinvention, it's kinda fun to watch.

[Helmet Head]

Why can you not grasp that we understand what you're trying to say, but it still doesn't mean it's correct. Credibility of the source is entirely relevant. Every time you make another faulty argument, your credibilty goes down.

Perhaps you're unfamilar with the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

But the point of The Boy Who Cried Wolf (I can't believe I have to explain this, and the difference with what I'm doing here) is that what the boy needed to say depended on the others in the village believing him. Once he had lost his credibility, his claims of seeing a wolf were no longer believed.

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I'm saying about anything. I'm not making claims that require faith in my credibility or experience in order to accept them. If you think I am, what are these mysterious claims?



Of course the amount of experience is relevant.

Relevant to what?


The more the experience, the greater the store of situations one has encountered and developed a strategy to handle. You don't get that from a book, Serge. If you haven't experienced a similar situation to something that might be described here, your knowledge of how to deal with it is second hand at best. Theories are a starting point for experience, but if you never apply them, they remain as nothing but theories.

Have I written anything that you think disagrees with this? If so, what? If not, why do you feel compelled to point this out?


That's the impression I get from you, Serge, you're dishing out second hand knowledge without ever having actually experienced the situation or something similar yourself.
Do you have any specific examples of me doing this? Any? Where have I ever dished out "knowledge"? I ask this because I try very carefully to not do that. I may have slipped here and there, I'm sure. But, again, for the most part, what I try to do is present arguments that are based on premises that a reasonable person with a reasonable amount of traffic cycling experience will accept. I then build on that logically. My "value add", if you will, is the argument based on stuff that folks already accept. At least that's what I try to do.


If you can't describe how YOU have learned to deal with something when it happened to YOU in the real world, your advice is more or less worthless.

Sigh (bangs head on desk). I try to avoid advice based on my personal experience that others may or may not be able to relate to. What I try to do is base my advice on experiences that I believe we already all have in common, and build on that with logic and reason. See above.

Gotta go.

[yes]

alpha dog posture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N25PuPXxBcs&NR=1)...

[randya]

classic HH!!!


:beer:

What does this mean?!?!?!


I try to avoid advice based on my personal experience that others may or may not be able to relate to.

:D

[Allister]

Sigh (bangs head on desk).

You'll need to do more than that to knock some sense into it.

I try to avoid advice based on my personal experience that others may or may not be able to relate to. What I try to do is base my advice on experiences that I believe we already all have in common, and build on that with logic and reason.


And that's exactly your problem.

[LittleBigMan]

Bek was targeted by a lame-ass idiot who needs serious psychiatric help. Don't spin it beyond that.

I ride all the time without that crap--but it could happen tomorrow. If it does, I won't blame Serge, or anyone else except the medication-desperate motorist.
Well, it did happen today (but not anything like Bek's experience.)

Some baby-pants decided to lay on the horn over and over to communicate his anger that a cyclist was on the road. Unfortunately, there are some who do not know that cyclists are allowed there. ;)

I just showed him my driver's license (with my finger) and he slowed down to look at it :D . (I later felt ashamed for letting him bring me down to his pathetic level :rolleyes: )

Just to let everyone (and Beck) know that it does happen in my 'hood (thankfully, most are courteous to me on my bike.)

[Allister]

Do you have any specific examples of me doing this? Any? Where have I ever dished out "knowledge"?

LOL. Good one.

Wait... are you serious?

I ask this because I try very carefully to not do that. I may have slipped here and there, I'm sure. But, again, for the most part, what I try to do is present arguments that are based on premises that a reasonable person with a reasonable amount of traffic cycling experience will accept. I then build on that logically. My "value add", if you will, is the argument based on stuff that folks already accept. At least that's what I try to do.


Then you have failed.

[The Human Car]

I've been riding a bike on streets for almost 40 years! Why you persist with this ridiculous newbie argument about me is beyond me, but it's moot anyway. As I've explained countless times, experience only has relevance in these debates when someone makes a claim that is based on his or her personal experience.
I don’t mean to be offensive here but I personally think you need to examine why you come across as a n00b as obviously 40 years of experience is not cutting it for you. I’ve been back on the bike 7 years and about 5 of those years I have been VC aware and I don’t recall being accused of being a n00b here (or elsewhere.)

You don’t seem to get it that being accused of being a n00b is a way of saying that your “expert” opinion is not recognized as being any were near valid. You have been quoting Robert’s book in this thread as if it was gospel and in another thread as if it is a totally erroneous piece of trash. It leaves me scratching my head on the validity of any of your opinions. Some of your obsessions such as DLLP are hazardous advice for cyclists in different environments, people point this out but you persist, you are failing to learn from your own teachers who got you to this point, or align yourself with some other group who you deem superior. Instead you have struck out as some sort of missionary for a new religion that few can relate to.

Experience counts only if you can relate to those of lesser experience and motivate them to do better. An old man who tells whooper fish stories may be base those stories on real experience but if the outcome is only eyes rolling, the old man will hardly be deemed a fishing expert. If the old man stories resulted in people being able to fish better he would be considered an expert but otherwise he is just telling whoppers or some might even consider him a n00b.

[The Human Car]

Originally Posted by Helmet Head I try to avoid advice based on my personal experience that others may or may not be able to relate to. What I try to do is base my advice on experiences that I believe we already all have in common, and build on that with logic and reason.
And that's exactly your problem.
Exactly, when your personal experience merge with what we all have in common then you are on your way to true enlightenment.

[Allister]

But the point of The Boy Who Cried Wolf (I can't believe I have to explain this, and the difference with what I'm doing here) is that what the boy needed to say depended on the others in the village believing him. Once he had lost his credibility, his claims of seeing a wolf were no longer believed.

No Serge. Let me explain it to you.

The boy starts with a base credibility of 0. His first cry of 'wolf' was taken at face value and all the villagers run to see. Unfortunately, his claims were not backed up by the villager's experience ie. they didn't find the wolf where he said they would. Credibility deficit.

Every following cry of 'wolf' that wasn't supported by investigation and experience reduced his credibility, despite them repeatedly giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Eventually, the villager's experience lead them to the conclusion that any crys of 'wolf' from the boy are a lie. His credibility is shot, and when they actually do need to listen to him, they don't, based on their experience with this individual.

Belief, or more accurately, trust, in the messenger, whether you like it or not, does have a bearing on how the message is received. You can only be wrong so many times before people stop listening to you altogether.

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I'm saying about anything. I'm not making claims that require faith in my credibility or experience in order to accept them. If you think I am, what are these mysterious claims?

I am not - quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that your premise that your credibility has no bearing on how your posts are received is faulty. You should be using your experience to inform your posts, and trying to improve your credibility. The fact that you don't only supports the view that you don't have any. Show us your experience, if you have any, and we'll be more inclined to test out your theories, or come look for the wolf, as it were, especailly if it is in accord with other experienced cyclist's experiences.

[randya]

it's really too bad Serge doesn't get paid by the word. every new sentence I try to parse out is stranger than the last

[The Human Car]

Road rage can usually be controlled by behavior that defuses, rather than escalates, the situation.
Taking full responsibility in the way Robert Hurst intends, includes taking the responsibility to defuse potential road rage escalations, no matter how much the other is to blame.
Cyclists like Bekologist often do not take full responsibility for their destiny in traffic, in the way that Hurst intends, and tend to blame cagers quite a bit.
First off road rage can be dang hard to defuse especially after a real close call and your adrenaline is going. If someone came swinging a bat at you saying "We don't like your kind here." How do you defuse that and how is that different then a motorist swinging his car at you saying "We don't like your kind here."?

Next that is one hell of a leap "Cyclists like Bekologist" do you know him better then I do? Somehow I doubt it and I would not make that assertion. And what's with "tend to blame cagers quite a bit" WTF!?!?!? This is coming from someone who says it is the cyclists fault if they get hit on a shoulder by drunk, it's the cyclists fault if they get hit while taking the lane. It seems to me you have a way of blaming the cyclist no matter what the situation.

[Bekologist]

Cyclists like Bekologist often do not take full responsibility for their destiny in traffic, in the way that Hurst intends, and tend to blame cagers quite a bit. :roflmao: Actually head, you are incorrect in your read of me. I take FULL responsibility for my destiny in traffic. Curious for a guy that drives a lot to criticize me, a bicyclist that rides wherever I have to go that I'm not taking full responsibility for my destiny. I choose to ride.

If you looked at my posts honestly, you'd realize that there is no way a noob would know enough to write the way I do. :roflmao: your armchair pontifications about traffic cycling ARE very transparent. why do you think a lot of us have the same impression of you, head? because you're THE most onerous Bike Forums ARMCHAIR BICYCLIST.

There's 'armchair experts' in every field. you're one of them. and they think you're a newbie on the Chainguard list too? :rolleyes: get over your self-importance and RIDE, head. more saddle, less prattle.


I've been using that technique successfully almost on a daily basis in heavy/fast commuter traffic for over two years. WAIT A SECOND. you drive all the time, head. are you confusing your motoring with your bicycling AGAIN??? it's VERY TELLING how you talk about your 'driving and bicycling', head. get out of the car and RIDE. stop conflating your 'driving defensively' with your bicycling- THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ACTIVITY, dude.

More saddle, less prattle, Head. You have been christened 'newbie' in this forum and others. Get out there and ride, and you too will begin to see the way it really is out there -on a bicycle in traffic on a daily basis. you WILL cross paths with motorists that DO NOT respect your right to the lane. despite your choice of bicycling eyewear coloring the interaction.

Head, 'taking the lane' and 'traffic negotiation' is something I've been doing for a couple of decades. i've been a transportational bicyclist since the 1980's. you've been doing it now, part time, mostly in packs of weekender LCI groupies, for a couple of years? impressive :rolleyes:

[Brian Ratliff]

Well, it did happen today (but not anything like Bek's experience.)

Some baby-pants decided to lay on the horn over and over to communicate his anger that a cyclist was on the road. Unfortunately, there are some who do not know that cyclists are allowed there. ;)

I just showed him my driver's license (with my finger) and he slowed down to look at it :D . (I later felt ashamed for letting him bring me down to his pathetic level :rolleyes: )

Just to let everyone (and Beck) know that it does happen in my 'hood (thankfully, most are courteous to me on my bike.)

Holy **** did you call it! ;)

I'm glad that it didn't escalate beyond that. Atlanta is probably big enough that it wouldn't occur to you to think, nor is it likely, that you'd encounter this particular motorist again. My most recent incident of this type was earlier this year, about June, and one of my primary concerns was coming across this particular motorist on my way back home. Out where I live, there are only a few rural highways which connect some locations. On my way from home to work, there really is only one direct route. I am on that particular intersectionless road for about 20 minutes; lots of time for this particular driver to overlap my route. I was seriously considering staying at work an extra hour to attempt to make sure this didn't happen.

[Bekologist]

Head, what do you do when confronted with an angry motorist, that chooses to disrespect your lane position, is incensed by your claiming the narrow lane, and the motorist pulls ahead, then slows and waits for you in the road, and executes a 'slow and swerve?'

Motorists would be miffed at your lane position often, head, if you ride they way you describe how you'd ride solo in dense commuter traffic, claiming the lane like you boast. some of us, even Gene in your neck of genteel san diego, are reporting in this thread 3 out of 5 trips gets them an angry motorist response.

Head, have you ever even experienced the 'slow and swerve?' do you understand what I'm describing?

you claim to have no idea how a motorist could try to hit a bicyclist and miss...you think it's incredible :rolleyes: well, head, you have proven your 'newbie' status once again.

But let's put that aside for a moment. you need to travel in the same direction as the angry motorist, and they have executed a 'slow and swerve' at you... what do you do? let the motorist intimidate you into stopping? what if they pull up a hundred yards and wait for you again? What if the driver has a lot of freetime, and goes up a ways, and turns around and comes back at you? has the scenario become a 'hostile environment' yet?

What do you do? (or should I say, "Would" you do, as it is apparant your lack of bicycling experience hasn't gotten you into this situation)
Stop? Let that motorist turn you into a second class road user? get intimidated? do you stop and "smile and wave?"

What would you do, faced with a "slow and swerve", head? you've obviously never experienced one.

[zeytoun]

I've been riding a bike on streets for almost 40 years!
...
I've never seen anyone create a gap in the traffic through negotiation the way that I do now.
...
there is no way a noob would know enough to write the way I do.
...
the way I ride today is a revolutionary change
Ooohhh, I see a budding John Forester in the making (I mean, the arrogance without the book publishing, of course)!

What I've argued is that the credibility of the person making an argument has no relevance when the argument being put forward does not depend on the credibility of the person making the argument. Why can you not grasp this?While it is true that things are true or false independent of their source, as has been explained to you if the majority of your assertions are false, then only a fool would scour the opus of your words for the few true things you do say.

For example, you seldom give sound interpretations of law. If a person wanting to get good advice about their predicament, had a finite amount of time, & came across a paragraph of yours that appeared to be discussing interpretations of laws, they would be advised to skip it. Of course, you might have that one time said something innocuous and not overtly false, but they'd better play their odds and spend their precious time reading someone else's post.

A few hear have taken it as a duty to keep your track record in certain areas apparent to newbies, lest they waste their time.

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I'm saying about anything. I'm not making claims that require faith in my credibility or experience in order to accept them. If you think I am, what are these mysterious claims?Well, for one, the claim that "VC best practices" will reduce your risk of collision, versus just using basic vc and defensive driving. There is not a single study produced that shows that consistently using methods like "Thinking of yourself, inwardly, as being a driver with the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, Signaling using look backs" or other more subtle nuances of lane positioning, or "assertive body language"
will make you any safer then just riding legally in traffic (as opposed to sidewalks), and taking the lane on occasion (narrow lanes, RTOLs, etc)

You've asked us to take it on faith, or by imagining hypothetical situations in our head. No real data of any kind...

[Carusoswi]

The name of the bridge was in his original post. It took me 30 seconds, rather than just a few, because I didn't like the picture on the Wikipedia page.

The internet is not as difficult as you make it out to be.

Actually, I haven't made any inferences at all to the internet, how easy or difficult it is. Where'd you come up with that?

OTOH, my participation here is more for personal enlightenment/entertainment. This isn't a job for me, and I don't feel myself obligated to due diligence as a prerequisite to responding to posts in a thread . . . hence, I did and will do no research on the bridge in question. I asked the OP for details, will trust him to provide same if he is so inclined.

If the photo in your post is representative of conditions typical to that bridge, I'm left wondering more than ever why the OP would pass up the less trafficked, safer surface to tangle with heavy traffic on a narrow, metal grate bridge.

Sorry, but, for me, cycling advocacy ain't about this. If the OP was looking to illustrate counterpoint, there are safer, more practical means, in my view.

Internet forum topics often take on a life of their own. This one seems like an embryo looking for fertilization.

The more I read about this incident, the more incredulous it appears.

Caruso

[Carusoswi]

hey, I thought you'd bowed out, caruso. What? Chiding me for not sharing details? get over it.

My intent was clear. I had a run in with a ragin' cager, and it made the news.

This thread illustrates the fallacy bandied about in A&S by the 'act like vehicles' camp. you can bicycle like a vehicle, and the motorists don't all 'smile and wave'.

I see this must be something you need to defend - are YOU a foresterite or a LCI, caruso???

at least you're not as bad off as Head, who can justify a motorist swerving at-but not really trying to impact- 'trying to teach a bicyclist a lesson' :eek: (Head, you need to seek some professional help.)

Don't know what an LCI is, have never read Forester. I'm just me, callin' 'em as I see 'em. You are free to respond to or mock me. That's up to you. Neither my lifestyle nor my cycling style hinges upon your response.

Caruso

[Carusoswi]

But you (or any other driver) may be unqualified to determined whether the alternative is acceptable to the rider or whether the alternative is safer.

Won't disagree with you in general terms . . . but, when a poster gets specific, and we look at the conditions present in a specific location, whether or not the offending driver in this specific situation can make that judgment call is, IMO, less pertinent than the judgment exercised by the cyclist, who, in this case, seems quite mum concerning details that precipitated this incident.

Looking at photos of the location, I can see why no great defense is offered by the OP.

This thread certainly is not about cycling safety or advocacy.

Caruso

[Brian]

I believe an admin can tell you when the last time any post was edited, and perhaps even what was edited, should you suspect that is the case.

That and the Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus/Easter Bunny.

But we can see all the deleted posts. [evil laughter inserted here]

[I-Like-To-Bike]

HH...tell us a little about your own personal experience with "ragin' cagers" and what lessons you've learned from those incidents.
PUHLEEEZE!!! No mas!!!!
Save the electrons!!!!

[invisiblehand]

Won't disagree with you in general terms . . . but, when a poster gets specific, and we look at the conditions present in a specific location, whether or not the offending driver in this specific situation can make that judgment call is, IMO, less pertinent than the judgment exercised by the cyclist, who, in this case, seems quite mum concerning details that precipitated this incident.

Looking at photos of the location, I can see why no great defense is offered by the OP.

This thread certainly is not about cycling safety or advocacy.

Caruso

I almost missed this post among the chaff.

[dynodonn]

PUHLEEEZE!!! No mas!!!!
Save the electrons!!!!


:roflmao: I had to have something for entertainment reading while waiting for Trick or Treaters last night.

[Bekologist]

sorry, carusowi, but my choosing to ride on the bridge deck HAS NOTHING to do with bicycling 'advocacy' and is simply the most appropriate and safest place for me to ride my bike. head should be proud :rolleyes:

Maybe, if head or carusowi were confronted with an angry driver telling him to get on the sidewalk, would comply with that request.\ Carusowi would be ON the sidewalk already, Head, maybe he would be too?

I think 3-5% of bicyclists choose the bridge deck. Traffic is relatively slow, there are traffic signals at either end of the bridge approaches. the ped walkways are often filled with pedestrians, gawkers & cyclists. Regaining the lane after the bridge deck is problematic. Hence, I choose to ride the deck, and am legally allowed to do so. It is the most exedient and safest road position across the Fremont Bridge.

the reason I posted this is consistent: It is realistic counterpoint to the fallacious "act like a vehicle and the drivers smile and wave" bull that gets bandied about in this forum by the 'act like a vehicle' camp. (Actually, Steve G. in North Carolina- admits taking the lane increases the chance of honks and driver disaproval. ) but there's a crew of rabid 'vc' acolytes that like to proclaim- rather dishonestly- that driver conflicts melt away if you just act like a vehicle.

A Bike Forums A&S masquerade. Sheer folly.

[noisebeam]

A few thoughts...

1. Bek has years of high mileage, some of which must be on narrow laned roads where I assume he uses similar lane position as when the incident occurred. We have rarely heard of other 'ragin cager' stories from Beck before. Either they are very rare for Bek (as they are for me) or Bek more often than not successfully diffuses them to 'non-story' incidents.

2. When there is a unsharable narrow lane (in my experience) if one rides far right one will create more upset drivers and increase the chance of honking vs. if one rides centerish. The reasoning I believe is that if one rides centerish drivers can see in advance that the lane can not be shared and that passing will require a lane change. This results in a much greater number of drivers merging left/passing sooner while they are still at near traffic speed when passing is easier to do. The passing driver then opens up visibility to the cyclists so following drivers can see the situation sooner and pass sooner as well. If one is far right more drivers will approach the cyclist until they are just behind them and then realize they can not pass, at that point they are slowed to cyclists speed and driver behind them are too. This makes passing harder and create more upset drivers. So in summary riding VC on narrow laned (unsharable width) roads results in fewer aggressive encounters vs. riding far right.

3. I've had a few negative encounters on the road. I have sometimes reacted badly in response, yelling back, waving arm, etc. Every single time I've done this instead of smiling or waving I have either felt bad about my response later or have escalated the interaction. Every time have waved or signaled intent the situation ended shortly after. I agree that the best course of action is to diffuse the situation, but I also agree this can be very hard to do in the moment. My track record in this regard is about 50/50.

Al

[LittleBigMan]

I agree that the best course of action is to diffuse the situation, but I also agree this can be very hard to do in the moment. My track record in this regard is about 50/50.

Al
I think even at my best times I'm vulnerable to negative reactions when I feel threatened. Although I usually correct my attitude later, I think it's probably normal. What I would consider a Really Bad Idea is to go around with a chip on my shoulder, planning what "payback" I would dish out to the Next Guy Who Tries Something.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

:roflmao: I had to have something for entertainment reading while waiting for Trick or Treaters last night.

You could have sent them away in terror by reading aloud some of the scary stuff from the Head Hobgoblin!

[dynodonn]

You could have sent them away in terror by reading aloud some of the scary stuff from the Head Hobgoblin!


That's not going to happen, granted my windows need cleaning, but I don't like the choice of the Trickster's soap, and the front porch light gives off better lumens than a flaming paper bag. Gave out lots and lots of candy last night.

EDIT: I have learned when to implement my incident diffusing techniques years ago. :D

[Helmet Head]

LOL. Good one.

Wait... are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious.


I try to avoid [giving] advice based on my personal experience that others may or may not be able to relate to. What I try to do is base my advice on experiences that I believe we already all have in common, and build on that with logic and reason.
Then you have failed.
Easy to say. But failed at what? Consider my posts in this thread. Where have I failed to try to base my advice on experiences that I believe we already all have in common, and build on that with logic and reason? Can you provide any examples of that? Any?

To illustrate with an example, something I said earlier was that an idea i was testing was: "Road rage can usually be controlled by behavior that defuses, rather than escalates, the situation." Human Car challenged this, saying, "First off road rage can be dang hard to defuse especially after a real close call and your adrenaline is going." Well, I never said it was easy. But the point is, it's usually possible to defuse a road rage situation, rather than escalate it, but of course that involves being able to control your own behavior.

I'm saying that your premise that your credibility has no bearing on how your posts are received is faulty.
I have no such premise. If you choose to dismiss an argument based on ad hominem attack, I can't stop you. It's a logical fallacy, but if you want it, it's yours. Personally, I evaluate arguments as objectively as I can. I could care less if Albert Einstein, John Forester, Robert Hurst, John Doe, Forest Gump or Charles Manson is making an argument. I might take into account who is making the argument in order to enhance my ability to interpret intended meaning effectively, but who has made the argument has no bearing on my evaluation of its validity. I see that as the only reasonable way to evaluate arguments.


You should be using your experience to inform your posts, and trying to improve your credibility.
This is an internet forum. Everyone has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.


The fact that you don't only supports the view that you don't have any. Show us your experience, if you have any, and we'll be more inclined to test out your theories, or come look for the wolf, as it were, especailly if it is in accord with other experienced cyclist's experiences.
This is an internet forum. I have no way to prove what my experience is. All I can do is make claims which I have no way to prove. I have no desire to build credibility here. I have no interest in reaching people who evaluate arguments based on some irrational "credibility" evaluation of whoever is presenting the argument. Frankly, I don't know how to reach people like that, and can't understand what persuades them, for it's obviously not what persuades me: arguments grounded in reason and logic that are based on reasonable explicit and implicit assumptions (which has nothing to do with who is presenting them, or the credibility or the experience of the presenter, by definition).

[Helmet Head]

Head, what do you do when confronted with an angry motorist, that chooses to disrespect your lane position, is incensed by your claiming the narrow lane, and the motorist pulls ahead, then slows and waits for you in the road, and executes a 'slow and swerve?'
Some combination of: smiling, waving, and backing off. I certainly would not pass someone who is showing signs of losing it.

The defensive driving rule for dealing with drunk drivers is stay behind them. Same principle applies, for related reasons, with respect to raging drivers when riding on a bike.


Motorists would be miffed at your lane position often, head, if you ride they way you describe how you'd ride solo in dense commuter traffic, claiming the lane like you boast. some of us, even Gene in your neck of genteel san diego, are reporting in this thread 3 out of 5 trips gets them an angry motorist response.

Head, have you ever even experienced the 'slow and swerve?' do you understand what I'm describing?

you claim to have no idea how a motorist could try to hit a bicyclist and miss...you think it's incredible :rolleyes: well, head, you have proven your 'newbie' status once again.

But let's put that aside for a moment. you need to travel in the same direction as the angry motorist, and they have executed a 'slow and swerve' at you... what do you do? let the motorist intimidate you into stopping? what if they pull up a hundred yards and wait for you again? What if the driver has a lot of freetime, and goes up a ways, and turns around and comes back at you? has the scenario become a 'hostile environment' yet?

What do you do? (or should I say, "Would" you do, as it is apparant your lack of bicycling experience hasn't gotten you into this situation)
Stop? Let that motorist turn you into a second class road user? get intimidated? do you stop and "smile and wave?"

What would you do, faced with a "slow and swerve", head? you've obviously never experienced one.
You're right, Beck, I've never allowed a situation to escalate to this point. I've describe what I would do at the intitiation of such a situation, above.

What's conspicuously missing from all this is any description from you about what you did, from the first moment you were confronted by the ahole.

[noisebeam]

Bek wrote: "what do you do when confronted with an angry motorist, that chooses to disrespect your lane position, is incensed by your claiming the narrow lane, and the motorist pulls ahead, then slows and waits for you in the road, and executes a 'slow and swerve?'"

I stayed behind them. I verbally engaged which I should not have, but I could have very easily cycled up next to them and escalated face to face or hit their vehicle. I made a thought out decision at the time not to because avoiding further conflict was more important to me than retaliating or getting in the drivers face.

Al

[joejack951]

what do you do when confronted with an angry motorist, that chooses to disrespect your lane position, is incensed by your claiming the narrow lane, and the motorist pulls ahead, then slows and waits for you in the road, and executes a 'slow and swerve?'

At first, I just stayed behind him. When he slowed down and eventually stopped and refused to move, I got off my bike and walked it up onto the sidewalk and told him to go. When he still wouldn't move, I got back on the road in front of him which of course resulted in him repassing me. From that point on, I rode behind the guy at 10-15mph until he eventually got tired and went on his way. Not once did I touch his vehicle and not once did I threaten him in any way. And this guy was about as big of an a-hole as you could ever imagine. This was on my way to the court house about my narrow lane ticket (same road, different section where there is no shoulder) :)

[Bekologist]

yep. second class road users all the way, boys. intimidated by motorists. oh well.

[joejack951]

yep. second class road users all the way, boys. intimidated by motorists. oh well.

How does some idiot's actions make me second class? You should have heard the honks this guy was getting for stopping in the right lane of a 45mph road by the way.

[Helmet Head]

yep. second class road users all the way, boys. intimidated by motorists. oh well.
Perhaps it takes experience that you don't have to distinguish who is just funnin' with the honking from someone who actually presents a real physical threat to you. But I tend to err, with considerable care to not cave too often, on the side of caution.