MarkS
03-11-08, 10:14 AM
Nearly every cyclist where I live has cycled with 50mph traffic behind them. So what?
In narrow lanes? Hauling a child?
In narrow lanes? Hauling a child?
View Full Version : Are you happier without bike facilities?
noisebeam
03-11-08, 10:15 AM
In narrow lanes? Hauling a child?
Where did I mention narrow lanes and 50mph traffic?
Sure some do, but that is not what I said.
Al
Where did I mention narrow lanes and 50mph traffic?
Sure some do, but that is not what I said.
Al
noisebeam
03-11-08, 10:18 AM
should they have to be required to do so in order to transit their community on a bicycle?
In the singular example I was giving, the guy who tows a trailer I've seen on roads mostly with bike lanes, but what I noted is that he left the bike lanes at intersection approaches and lined up with other stopped traffic if traffic was stopped.
Al
In the singular example I was giving, the guy who tows a trailer I've seen on roads mostly with bike lanes, but what I noted is that he left the bike lanes at intersection approaches and lined up with other stopped traffic if traffic was stopped.
Al
rando
03-11-08, 10:19 AM
Nearly every cyclist where I live has cycled with 50mph traffic behind them. So what?
yeah, but most don't make a regular practice of it, I think. I rarely see it, anyway.
yeah, but most don't make a regular practice of it, I think. I rarely see it, anyway.
ChipSeal
03-11-08, 10:19 AM
I take the lane all the time. On arterials with 35-55 MPH PSL. (Being Texas, the posted speed limit is considered a mere suggestion only.) On country roads with the speed limit signs removedI :eek: I do it if I am cycling fast or slow. Cagers react the same to you if you are going 8 MPH or 28 MPH. (I need a really good tailwind to do 28! :o)
I would be more comfortable with a child while taking a lane than cowering in the gutter. Here in Dallas, the right lane IS the bike lane. Do you have a 15' swept and well maintained bike lane like me? In my experience, if the facility is engineered correctly, it is better for all road users, motorists and cyclists alike.
Narrow right lanes is best.
I would be more comfortable with a child while taking a lane than cowering in the gutter. Here in Dallas, the right lane IS the bike lane. Do you have a 15' swept and well maintained bike lane like me? In my experience, if the facility is engineered correctly, it is better for all road users, motorists and cyclists alike.
Narrow right lanes is best.
noisebeam
03-11-08, 10:23 AM
By restriping so that a 3 lane road with one wide lane becomes a four lane with no wide lane and maybe no or minimal shoulder. This is especially likely to happen if a road area is going under construction. Apparently lane width and shoulder requirements can be waived if an area is termed a construction area. Unfortunately, these construction areas can linger on 2 or three years.
Around here all roads east were restriped/repainted in just this manner to make way for a freeway. Bike lanes were removed, and no WOL was left.
Maybe you would be happy going up hill with 50+ mph traffic behind you, and no shoulder or WOL, but I wasn't. And although I could do it personally and deal with the traffic, I probably would have been arrested if I had tried to take my child on the tag-a-long. There was an "official" bike detour that went 3 miles out of the way up one of the steepest hills around, leading to another East route that ALSO had the same lane problem due to the same freeway construction.
Young studs can ride their expensive lightweight bikes anywhere, but the rest of us like bike lanes.
Why is the argument always presented as if there is no bike lane then the outside lane will be narrow, uphill and with 50mph traffic?
Have I ever argued against WOLs? Have I ever argued against the extra pavement space provided by bike lanes? It is the bike lane stripe at intersection approaches and used to defining bike lanes adjacent to door zones that I have issue with. Just the paint.
Anyway, WOLs are part of the cycling infrastructure here.
Al
Around here all roads east were restriped/repainted in just this manner to make way for a freeway. Bike lanes were removed, and no WOL was left.
Maybe you would be happy going up hill with 50+ mph traffic behind you, and no shoulder or WOL, but I wasn't. And although I could do it personally and deal with the traffic, I probably would have been arrested if I had tried to take my child on the tag-a-long. There was an "official" bike detour that went 3 miles out of the way up one of the steepest hills around, leading to another East route that ALSO had the same lane problem due to the same freeway construction.
Young studs can ride their expensive lightweight bikes anywhere, but the rest of us like bike lanes.
Why is the argument always presented as if there is no bike lane then the outside lane will be narrow, uphill and with 50mph traffic?
Have I ever argued against WOLs? Have I ever argued against the extra pavement space provided by bike lanes? It is the bike lane stripe at intersection approaches and used to defining bike lanes adjacent to door zones that I have issue with. Just the paint.
Anyway, WOLs are part of the cycling infrastructure here.
Al
noisebeam
03-11-08, 10:24 AM
yeah, but most don't make a regular practice of it, I think. I rarely see it, anyway.
You never ride along Guadalupe or any other arterial in the valley? I see hundreds of cyclists doing so.
Al
You never ride along Guadalupe or any other arterial in the valley? I see hundreds of cyclists doing so.
Al
MarkS
03-11-08, 10:28 AM
Where did I mention narrow lanes and 50mph traffic?
Sure some do, but that is not what I said.
Al
Follow the trail of posts to which you appeared to be responding.
The question is, if a road is not safe for an 8mph cyclist (try better than that hauling 50 lbs of child and gear uphill!) with a child, is it really safe for anyone else, no matter what they think?
Having a kid around changes your perspective on safety.
The bike lanes provide a politically acceptable way for all kinds of people to transport themselves -- not just a handful of dare-devil cyclists.
Sure some do, but that is not what I said.
Al
Follow the trail of posts to which you appeared to be responding.
The question is, if a road is not safe for an 8mph cyclist (try better than that hauling 50 lbs of child and gear uphill!) with a child, is it really safe for anyone else, no matter what they think?
Having a kid around changes your perspective on safety.
The bike lanes provide a politically acceptable way for all kinds of people to transport themselves -- not just a handful of dare-devil cyclists.
noisebeam
03-11-08, 10:37 AM
Follow the trail of posts to which you appeared to be responding.
The question is, if a road is not safe for an 8mph cyclist (try better than that hauling 50 lbs of child and gear uphill!) with a child, is it really safe for anyone else, no matter what they think?
Having a kid around changes your perspective on safety.
The bike lanes provide a politically acceptable way for all kinds of people to transport themselves -- not just a handful of dare-devil cyclists.
I was responding to THC who wrote in response to your post which mentioned nothing about 8mph in 50mph traffic:
"When my kids were little I used to ride all over the place without the aid of bike lanes. Kid trailers are one of the best get respect on the road devices ever made. (Note: I did pretest routes with an empty trailer first.) Zero harassment with the trailer and some harassment without."
And just added that I see a man with with a child trailer who rides vehicularly where I live.
By the way why are you calling those who care about their safety and cycle with traffic 'dare devil'? Why are you perpetuating the idea that cycling is more dangerous than it is?
Al
The question is, if a road is not safe for an 8mph cyclist (try better than that hauling 50 lbs of child and gear uphill!) with a child, is it really safe for anyone else, no matter what they think?
Having a kid around changes your perspective on safety.
The bike lanes provide a politically acceptable way for all kinds of people to transport themselves -- not just a handful of dare-devil cyclists.
I was responding to THC who wrote in response to your post which mentioned nothing about 8mph in 50mph traffic:
"When my kids were little I used to ride all over the place without the aid of bike lanes. Kid trailers are one of the best get respect on the road devices ever made. (Note: I did pretest routes with an empty trailer first.) Zero harassment with the trailer and some harassment without."
And just added that I see a man with with a child trailer who rides vehicularly where I live.
By the way why are you calling those who care about their safety and cycle with traffic 'dare devil'? Why are you perpetuating the idea that cycling is more dangerous than it is?
Al
rando
03-11-08, 11:20 AM
You never ride along Guadalupe or any other arterial in the valley? I see hundreds of cyclists doing so.
Al
I'm on Broadway. I don't see it.
C'mon, Al, you don't see hundreds.
Al
I'm on Broadway. I don't see it.
C'mon, Al, you don't see hundreds.
noisebeam
03-11-08, 11:24 AM
I'm on Broadway. I don't see it.
C'mon, Al, you don't see hundreds.
Yeah not at once, but over say a week I've seen hundreds of different cyclists riding along arterial roads. On any given 30min commute I see about 10-15.
So when you are cycling Broadway you never have 50mph traffic behind you? At what hours do you cycle? 3am?
Al
C'mon, Al, you don't see hundreds.
Yeah not at once, but over say a week I've seen hundreds of different cyclists riding along arterial roads. On any given 30min commute I see about 10-15.
So when you are cycling Broadway you never have 50mph traffic behind you? At what hours do you cycle? 3am?
Al
genec
03-11-08, 11:28 AM
Yeah not at once, but over say a week I've seen hundreds of different cyclists riding along arterial roads. On any given 30min commute I see about 10-15.
So when you are cycling Broadway you never have 50mph traffic behind you? At what hours do you cycle? 3am?
Al
the ironic joke of course is that to have 50MPH traffic "behind you," you would have to be moving at 50MPH.
So when you are cycling Broadway you never have 50mph traffic behind you? At what hours do you cycle? 3am?
Al
the ironic joke of course is that to have 50MPH traffic "behind you," you would have to be moving at 50MPH.
noisebeam
03-11-08, 11:35 AM
the ironic joke of course is that to have 50MPH traffic "behind you," you would have to be moving at 50MPH.
No joke. One most always has faster traffic behind them when cycling. Locally with 45mph arterials every cyclist who cycles along an arterial is going to have 50mph traffic behind them at some point. If one is in the same lane then, yes, that traffic will need to slow to cyclist speed and will no longer be 50mph traffic immediately and directly behind them.
Al
No joke. One most always has faster traffic behind them when cycling. Locally with 45mph arterials every cyclist who cycles along an arterial is going to have 50mph traffic behind them at some point. If one is in the same lane then, yes, that traffic will need to slow to cyclist speed and will no longer be 50mph traffic immediately and directly behind them.
Al
The Human Car
03-11-08, 12:59 PM
With 50+ MPH traffic behind them?
I don't buy it. And I never see it.
FWIW My routes with kids in tow never included roads faster the 35mph posted speed limit.
I don't buy it. And I never see it.
FWIW My routes with kids in tow never included roads faster the 35mph posted speed limit.
rando
03-11-08, 01:32 PM
Yeah not at once, but over say a week I've seen hundreds of different cyclists riding along arterial roads. On any given 30min commute I see about 10-15.
So when you are cycling Broadway you never have 50mph traffic behind you? At what hours do you cycle? 3am?
Al
No... because I'm on the sidewalk with the rest of the wusses.
:p
I admit, though, I commute during non-rush hour times. still, I see lots of cyclists... they're just not usually in the arterial traffic lanes. when I do see one I'm always surprised
So when you are cycling Broadway you never have 50mph traffic behind you? At what hours do you cycle? 3am?
Al
No... because I'm on the sidewalk with the rest of the wusses.
:p
I admit, though, I commute during non-rush hour times. still, I see lots of cyclists... they're just not usually in the arterial traffic lanes. when I do see one I'm always surprised
noisebeam
03-11-08, 01:35 PM
No... because I'm on the sidewalk with the rest of the wusses.
:p
The traffic is still behind you.
:p
The traffic is still behind you.
ChipSeal
03-11-08, 03:50 PM
I admit, though, I commute during non-rush hour times. Still, I see lots of cyclists... they're just not usually in the arterial traffic lanes. When I do see one I'm always surprised.
Next time, after you collect yourself from the surprise, observe how traffic deals with said cyclist. It will put to rest your unfounded fears in short order.
Tailwinds!
Next time, after you collect yourself from the surprise, observe how traffic deals with said cyclist. It will put to rest your unfounded fears in short order.
Tailwinds!
CommuterRun
03-11-08, 05:14 PM
...Kid trailers are one of the best get respect on the road devices ever made...
I have found this to be true regardless whether the trailer be a utility trailer, kid trailer or canoe trailer. I don't know why. Maybe it just looks like more than a guy on a bike out for a joy ride?
But I've never towed any of these trailers on narrow, two-lane highways with speed limits in excess of 55-60 mph.
I have found this to be true regardless whether the trailer be a utility trailer, kid trailer or canoe trailer. I don't know why. Maybe it just looks like more than a guy on a bike out for a joy ride?
But I've never towed any of these trailers on narrow, two-lane highways with speed limits in excess of 55-60 mph.
Ed Holland
03-11-08, 05:59 PM
Here's another slant on this subject. How do forum members think that cyclists are treated with more or less consideration (by other road users) as a result of our minority status on the road?
Put another way, are motorists more tolerant of the few cyclists they see, than they might be if cyclists made a more significant proportion of everyday traffic? As a gross alternative example, imagine no bike lanes, 1:1 car/bike ratio and cyclists all riding in a vehicular manner.
Ed
Put another way, are motorists more tolerant of the few cyclists they see, than they might be if cyclists made a more significant proportion of everyday traffic? As a gross alternative example, imagine no bike lanes, 1:1 car/bike ratio and cyclists all riding in a vehicular manner.
Ed
LittleBigMan
03-11-08, 06:44 PM
Here's another slant on this subject. How do forum members think that cyclists are treated with more or less consideration (by other road users) as a result of our minority status on the road?
Put another way, are motorists more tolerant of the few cyclists they see, than they might be if cyclists made a more significant proportion of everyday traffic? As a gross alternative example, imagine no bike lanes, 1:1 car/bike ratio and cyclists all riding in a vehicular manner.
Ed
Food for thought, Ed.
It's possible that motorists would be less tolerant, much like I am less tolerant of a swarm of mosquitos than a single one. Yet, another possibility is that motorists would be more familiar with how we operate, and also know more of us personally, so as to be more tolerant. In addition, it's possible that politics would favor us more.
Still, it's only speculation, at this point.
I'm not for demonizing vehicular cycling. Neither am I for demonizing cycling on bike facilities. Each has it's particular place for users. But bike facilities are too often seen as a replacement for vehicular cycling on public roads, rather than recognizing that they are only another alternative.
Put another way, are motorists more tolerant of the few cyclists they see, than they might be if cyclists made a more significant proportion of everyday traffic? As a gross alternative example, imagine no bike lanes, 1:1 car/bike ratio and cyclists all riding in a vehicular manner.
Ed
Food for thought, Ed.
It's possible that motorists would be less tolerant, much like I am less tolerant of a swarm of mosquitos than a single one. Yet, another possibility is that motorists would be more familiar with how we operate, and also know more of us personally, so as to be more tolerant. In addition, it's possible that politics would favor us more.
Still, it's only speculation, at this point.
I'm not for demonizing vehicular cycling. Neither am I for demonizing cycling on bike facilities. Each has it's particular place for users. But bike facilities are too often seen as a replacement for vehicular cycling on public roads, rather than recognizing that they are only another alternative.
CommuterRun
03-11-08, 07:16 PM
Up to a point, yes. But I think that point would be reached well before reaching a 1:1 ratio. At 1:1 every second vehicle on the road would be a bicycle, and by then that many cyclists would be considered normal.
Script
03-12-08, 09:12 AM
Here's another slant on this subject. How do forum members think that cyclists are treated with more or less consideration (by other road users) as a result of our minority status on the road?
Put another way, are motorists more tolerant of the few cyclists they see, than they might be if cyclists made a more significant proportion of everyday traffic? As a gross alternative example, imagine no bike lanes, 1:1 car/bike ratio and cyclists all riding in a vehicular manner.
Ed
Interesting... I think the minority status does have a negative impact on the impression. If the volume of cyclists approached anywhere near 1:1, that would probably change impressions but possibly not behavior. Those agressive or incompetent drivers will still be out there. My guess is the number of cyclist-motorist confrontations would go up proportionally.
On the other hand, that number of cyclists would also provide much higher visibility in the media, etc., to the needs of both drivers and cyclists. I would hope it would also mean that drivers would get educated as to the laws affecting both.
One of the current dillemmas for cyclists is the number of motorists that don't know(or perhaps don't want to know) the rules of the road. My surveys tell me that the majority don't have the slightest idea that cyclists basically have to follow the same rules as motorists.
If we had the same numbers, we'd have some political leverage?
:)
Put another way, are motorists more tolerant of the few cyclists they see, than they might be if cyclists made a more significant proportion of everyday traffic? As a gross alternative example, imagine no bike lanes, 1:1 car/bike ratio and cyclists all riding in a vehicular manner.
Ed
Interesting... I think the minority status does have a negative impact on the impression. If the volume of cyclists approached anywhere near 1:1, that would probably change impressions but possibly not behavior. Those agressive or incompetent drivers will still be out there. My guess is the number of cyclist-motorist confrontations would go up proportionally.
On the other hand, that number of cyclists would also provide much higher visibility in the media, etc., to the needs of both drivers and cyclists. I would hope it would also mean that drivers would get educated as to the laws affecting both.
One of the current dillemmas for cyclists is the number of motorists that don't know(or perhaps don't want to know) the rules of the road. My surveys tell me that the majority don't have the slightest idea that cyclists basically have to follow the same rules as motorists.
If we had the same numbers, we'd have some political leverage?
:)
John Forester
03-12-08, 09:49 AM
Interesting... I think the minority status does have a negative impact on the impression. If the volume of cyclists approached anywhere near 1:1, that would probably change impressions but possibly not behavior. Those agressive or incompetent drivers will still be out there. My guess is the number of cyclist-motorist confrontations would go up proportionally.
On the other hand, that number of cyclists would also provide much higher visibility in the media, etc., to the needs of both drivers and cyclists. I would hope it would also mean that drivers would get educated as to the laws affecting both.
One of the current dillemmas for cyclists is the number of motorists that don't know(or perhaps don't want to know) the rules of the road. My surveys tell me that the majority don't have the slightest idea that cyclists basically have to follow the same rules as motorists.
If we had the same numbers, we'd have some political leverage?
:)
The question of what proportion of road users need to be cyclists in order to have political leverage produces different answers depending on what one considers to be political leverage and by whom exercised.
In England in 1937, the motorists tried to get a mandatory side-path law enacted. (That's using American legal jargon; procedures are a bit different in Britain.) The minister of transport referred to cyclists as "road lice" (I believe it was him, my father remarked on this to me, and it has appeared in the press since). But the Cyclists' Touring Club organized the opposition and defeated the bill. I don't know what the proportion of cyclists was at that time, but in 1952, when the first such survey was made, 25% of the vehicle miles in Britain were made by cyclists, which implies that cyclists constituted much more than 25% of those on the road at any one time. (In 1952 Britain was still under petrol rationing, or some such system, as a result of the economic dislocations of WW 2.)
On the other hand, look at America today. For 30 years the governmental program regarding bicycle transportation has been bikeway building. That program appears to be permanent. One can argue how the motivation is divided between motorists' desire to shove cyclists aside and cyclists' desire to be shoved aside, but, at the least, this represents a considerable political achievement for cyclists. No matter how small the number of bicyclists, this represents political leverage.
However, consider the complaint written above, that few motorists recognize that cyclists are legitimate road users with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Well, you all have heard the proverb about getting what you wish for. Typical bicycle riders have spent their political capital getting the government to produce bikeways for them. Therefore, it is only too obvious, is it not, that one of the results is increased belief by motorists that bicyclists are illegitimate trespassers on the motorists' roadways?
As I repeatedly write, lawful and competent vehicular cyclists are squeezed between the motorists and the anti-motoring bicycle advocates.
On the other hand, that number of cyclists would also provide much higher visibility in the media, etc., to the needs of both drivers and cyclists. I would hope it would also mean that drivers would get educated as to the laws affecting both.
One of the current dillemmas for cyclists is the number of motorists that don't know(or perhaps don't want to know) the rules of the road. My surveys tell me that the majority don't have the slightest idea that cyclists basically have to follow the same rules as motorists.
If we had the same numbers, we'd have some political leverage?
:)
The question of what proportion of road users need to be cyclists in order to have political leverage produces different answers depending on what one considers to be political leverage and by whom exercised.
In England in 1937, the motorists tried to get a mandatory side-path law enacted. (That's using American legal jargon; procedures are a bit different in Britain.) The minister of transport referred to cyclists as "road lice" (I believe it was him, my father remarked on this to me, and it has appeared in the press since). But the Cyclists' Touring Club organized the opposition and defeated the bill. I don't know what the proportion of cyclists was at that time, but in 1952, when the first such survey was made, 25% of the vehicle miles in Britain were made by cyclists, which implies that cyclists constituted much more than 25% of those on the road at any one time. (In 1952 Britain was still under petrol rationing, or some such system, as a result of the economic dislocations of WW 2.)
On the other hand, look at America today. For 30 years the governmental program regarding bicycle transportation has been bikeway building. That program appears to be permanent. One can argue how the motivation is divided between motorists' desire to shove cyclists aside and cyclists' desire to be shoved aside, but, at the least, this represents a considerable political achievement for cyclists. No matter how small the number of bicyclists, this represents political leverage.
However, consider the complaint written above, that few motorists recognize that cyclists are legitimate road users with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Well, you all have heard the proverb about getting what you wish for. Typical bicycle riders have spent their political capital getting the government to produce bikeways for them. Therefore, it is only too obvious, is it not, that one of the results is increased belief by motorists that bicyclists are illegitimate trespassers on the motorists' roadways?
As I repeatedly write, lawful and competent vehicular cyclists are squeezed between the motorists and the anti-motoring bicycle advocates.
The Human Car
03-12-08, 10:34 AM
If the volume of cyclists approached anywhere near 1:1, that would probably change impressions but possibly not behavior. Those agressive or incompetent drivers will still be out there.
I'll disagree with this, as my impression is that most of the harassment/unsafe motorists behavior is because of the mistaken belief that I do not belong where I am or I am not ligament use of the roadway. If you have ever seen a car drive the wrong way on a way way street they will get a fair amount of honks and people yelling at them, but a double parked car does not warrant even a second thought. I am always amazed when I ride in the city, people complain about me in the lane when there is a double parked car up ahead in the same lane I am in and that's not an issue. :rolleyes:
Anyway when I remind a driver of their unsafe and illegal actions 90% of the time the response is "you shouldn't be in the road."
I'll disagree with this, as my impression is that most of the harassment/unsafe motorists behavior is because of the mistaken belief that I do not belong where I am or I am not ligament use of the roadway. If you have ever seen a car drive the wrong way on a way way street they will get a fair amount of honks and people yelling at them, but a double parked car does not warrant even a second thought. I am always amazed when I ride in the city, people complain about me in the lane when there is a double parked car up ahead in the same lane I am in and that's not an issue. :rolleyes:
Anyway when I remind a driver of their unsafe and illegal actions 90% of the time the response is "you shouldn't be in the road."
Script
03-12-08, 10:39 AM
However, consider the complaint written above, that few motorists recognize that cyclists are legitimate road users with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. Well, you all have heard the proverb about getting what you wish for. Typical bicycle riders have spent their political capital getting the government to produce bikeways for them. Therefore, it is only too obvious, is it not, that one of the results is increased belief by motorists that bicyclists are illegitimate trespassers on the motorists' roadways?
As I repeatedly write, lawful and competent vehicular cyclists are squeezed between the motorists and the anti-motoring bicycle advocates.
I doubt that the 'illegitimate trespassers' belief has much to do with bikeways. This is a giant country with relatively few 'bikeways'. In my experience, the attitude of drivers has more to do with generational and personal issues. Seems like senior citizens just don't like cyclists. Could that be because we are doing something they can no longer do? (Yes, I'm an SS but SS's that cycle are quite a small minority.) Most other drivers are (excuse) in a hurry and a cyclist gets in the way of their urgency to get wherever they're trying to go.
I'll grant that perhaps all the money spent to promote bikeways may be better spent educating the public. But if you've ever tried to teach a pig to sing you'd find out what a waste of time that is. (as well as annoying to the pig.).
My guess is that the places that have been successfully incorporating bikeways into the infrastructure have been through the exercise of 'let's just train the public' and discovered the above.
Additionally, getting people on the advocate bandwagon for something tangible, like bikeways, is an easier sell than 'educate the public'.
I may not agree completely with the cynical position I've described..but I am pragmatic about trying to change a culture.
:):):)
As I repeatedly write, lawful and competent vehicular cyclists are squeezed between the motorists and the anti-motoring bicycle advocates.
I doubt that the 'illegitimate trespassers' belief has much to do with bikeways. This is a giant country with relatively few 'bikeways'. In my experience, the attitude of drivers has more to do with generational and personal issues. Seems like senior citizens just don't like cyclists. Could that be because we are doing something they can no longer do? (Yes, I'm an SS but SS's that cycle are quite a small minority.) Most other drivers are (excuse) in a hurry and a cyclist gets in the way of their urgency to get wherever they're trying to go.
I'll grant that perhaps all the money spent to promote bikeways may be better spent educating the public. But if you've ever tried to teach a pig to sing you'd find out what a waste of time that is. (as well as annoying to the pig.).
My guess is that the places that have been successfully incorporating bikeways into the infrastructure have been through the exercise of 'let's just train the public' and discovered the above.
Additionally, getting people on the advocate bandwagon for something tangible, like bikeways, is an easier sell than 'educate the public'.
I may not agree completely with the cynical position I've described..but I am pragmatic about trying to change a culture.
:):):)
Script
03-12-08, 10:43 AM
I'll disagree with this, as my impression is that most of the harassment/unsafe motorists behavior is because of the mistaken belief that I do not belong where I am or I am not ligament use of the roadway. If you have ever seen a car drive the wrong way on a way way street they will get a fair amount of honks and people yelling at them, but a double parked car does not warrant even a second thought. I am always amazed when I ride in the city, people complain about me in the lane when there is a double parked car up ahead in the same lane I am in and that's not an issue. :rolleyes:
Anyway when I remind a driver of their unsafe and illegal actions 90% of the time the response is "you shouldn't be in the road."
Fair enough.:)
What's been the result of your telling a driver you do belong on the road?
I've tried that a number of times. Sure makes people hit the gas and race off.:D:D
Anyway when I remind a driver of their unsafe and illegal actions 90% of the time the response is "you shouldn't be in the road."
Fair enough.:)
What's been the result of your telling a driver you do belong on the road?
I've tried that a number of times. Sure makes people hit the gas and race off.:D:D
John Forester
03-12-08, 11:26 AM
I doubt that the 'illegitimate trespassers' belief has much to do with bikeways. This is a giant country with relatively few 'bikeways'. In my experience, the attitude of drivers has more to do with generational and personal issues. Seems like senior citizens just don't like cyclists. Could that be because we are doing something they can no longer do? (Yes, I'm an SS but SS's that cycle are quite a small minority.) Most other drivers are (excuse) in a hurry and a cyclist gets in the way of their urgency to get wherever they're trying to go.
I'll grant that perhaps all the money spent to promote bikeways may be better spent educating the public. But if you've ever tried to teach a pig to sing you'd find out what a waste of time that is. (as well as annoying to the pig.).
My guess is that the places that have been successfully incorporating bikeways into the infrastructure have been through the exercise of 'let's just train the public' and discovered the above.
Additionally, getting people on the advocate bandwagon for something tangible, like bikeways, is an easier sell than 'educate the public'.
I may not agree completely with the cynical position I've described..but I am pragmatic about trying to change a culture.
:):):)
The idea that cyclists are illegitimate trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads does not rely on the presence or absence of bikeways in the area. I thought that I did not convey that impression, but perhaps I did. The bikeway program is the physical, concrete, implementation of that superstition, which was cultivated for decades by the motoring organizations and the bike-safety producers, and which ultimately succeeded in excusing the bikeway program. But the advocacy of bikeways magnifies whatever the motorists had managed to do, thus increasing the strength of the superstition that cyclists are trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads.
I'll grant that perhaps all the money spent to promote bikeways may be better spent educating the public. But if you've ever tried to teach a pig to sing you'd find out what a waste of time that is. (as well as annoying to the pig.).
My guess is that the places that have been successfully incorporating bikeways into the infrastructure have been through the exercise of 'let's just train the public' and discovered the above.
Additionally, getting people on the advocate bandwagon for something tangible, like bikeways, is an easier sell than 'educate the public'.
I may not agree completely with the cynical position I've described..but I am pragmatic about trying to change a culture.
:):):)
The idea that cyclists are illegitimate trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads does not rely on the presence or absence of bikeways in the area. I thought that I did not convey that impression, but perhaps I did. The bikeway program is the physical, concrete, implementation of that superstition, which was cultivated for decades by the motoring organizations and the bike-safety producers, and which ultimately succeeded in excusing the bikeway program. But the advocacy of bikeways magnifies whatever the motorists had managed to do, thus increasing the strength of the superstition that cyclists are trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads.
genec
03-12-08, 03:35 PM
The idea that cyclists are illegitimate trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads does not rely on the presence or absence of bikeways in the area. I thought that I did not convey that impression, but perhaps I did. The bikeway program is the physical, concrete, implementation of that superstition, which was cultivated for decades by the motoring organizations and the bike-safety producers, and which ultimately succeeded in excusing the bikeway program. But the advocacy of bikeways magnifies whatever the motorists had managed to do, thus increasing the strength of the superstition that cyclists are trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads.
So unless that "idea" is somehow dashed in the minds of motorists... then it will continue to prevail.
Since by shear numbers alone, motorists well outnumber cyclists, expecting that "idea" to go away when many motorists aren't even aware of cyclists' legal rights to the road, is a pretty far fetched thought.
Perhaps bikeways do endorse those negative ideas... but the bottom line is that motorists will have those same thoughts unless there is a huge campaign to educate them. Such a huge campaign could also endorse vehicular cycling... and such a campaign may also be less costly then the current bikeways direction of some advocates. Yet such a campaign has never occurred and has not been proposed by any cycling advocacy group that I am aware of.
Could it be that in spite of "the motoring organizations", cyclists too would like their "own" roads?
So unless that "idea" is somehow dashed in the minds of motorists... then it will continue to prevail.
Since by shear numbers alone, motorists well outnumber cyclists, expecting that "idea" to go away when many motorists aren't even aware of cyclists' legal rights to the road, is a pretty far fetched thought.
Perhaps bikeways do endorse those negative ideas... but the bottom line is that motorists will have those same thoughts unless there is a huge campaign to educate them. Such a huge campaign could also endorse vehicular cycling... and such a campaign may also be less costly then the current bikeways direction of some advocates. Yet such a campaign has never occurred and has not been proposed by any cycling advocacy group that I am aware of.
Could it be that in spite of "the motoring organizations", cyclists too would like their "own" roads?
Script
03-12-08, 04:00 PM
The idea that cyclists are illegitimate trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads does not rely on the presence or absence of bikeways in the area. I thought that I did not convey that impression, but perhaps I did. The bikeway program is the physical, concrete, implementation of that superstition, which was cultivated for decades by the motoring organizations and the bike-safety producers, and which ultimately succeeded in excusing the bikeway program. But the advocacy of bikeways magnifies whatever the motorists had managed to do, thus increasing the strength of the superstition that cyclists are trespassers on what the motorists consider to be "their" roads.
I have never...never seen, heard or read anything from any official motoring organization about bicycles not belonging on the road. (junk available on the internet notwithstanding)
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I think I'm pretty representative of the experience of most drivers. The 'superstition' you describe is probably real, to some degree, but has nothing to do with bike facilities or a motorist conspiracy.
I stand by my observation that it has more to do with individual driver's attitudes. The majority of motorists are respectful of cyclists. If that were not the case, the statistics on accidents and injuries would be significantly higher.
:):)
I have never...never seen, heard or read anything from any official motoring organization about bicycles not belonging on the road. (junk available on the internet notwithstanding)
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I think I'm pretty representative of the experience of most drivers. The 'superstition' you describe is probably real, to some degree, but has nothing to do with bike facilities or a motorist conspiracy.
I stand by my observation that it has more to do with individual driver's attitudes. The majority of motorists are respectful of cyclists. If that were not the case, the statistics on accidents and injuries would be significantly higher.
:):)
noisebeam
03-12-08, 04:21 PM
I stand by my observation that it has more to do with individual driver's attitudes. The majority of motorists are respectful of cyclists. If that were not the case, the statistics on accidents and injuries would be significantly higher.
I tend to agree. I think cases where cyclists are harassed or treated poorly or dangerously by motorists stem mainly from personal issues of the perp. Some will bully anything that seems lesser to to them. Some will get overly impatient no matter who is slowing them down. It's always easier to let it out on a non-enclosed cyclist vs. a garbage truck driver for example.
I think the vast majority of driver know cyclist are legally allowed to use the roadway. However some don't agree with the law and some don't care about the law.
Teaching all drivers about the law and rights is not going to noticeably change the already low level of bullying or harassment cyclist receive. It may even inflame some folks who would rather not be reminded about the law and probably cause some (very likely unsuccessful, but temporarily vocal) efforts to change the law.
As my coworker says: It doesn't matter what the law is, it is still very stupid and also rude [to motorists] to cycle on the road. Or sometimes he says: Just cause it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
I think if one wants to reduce the incidents with the few rude ones out there one needs to target them with an effort to change their attitudes (good luck), not educate them on what they already begrudgingly know. The other thing that might help is to reach new drivers about attitudes about cyclists before they develop habits in how they treat them when motoring.
Al
I tend to agree. I think cases where cyclists are harassed or treated poorly or dangerously by motorists stem mainly from personal issues of the perp. Some will bully anything that seems lesser to to them. Some will get overly impatient no matter who is slowing them down. It's always easier to let it out on a non-enclosed cyclist vs. a garbage truck driver for example.
I think the vast majority of driver know cyclist are legally allowed to use the roadway. However some don't agree with the law and some don't care about the law.
Teaching all drivers about the law and rights is not going to noticeably change the already low level of bullying or harassment cyclist receive. It may even inflame some folks who would rather not be reminded about the law and probably cause some (very likely unsuccessful, but temporarily vocal) efforts to change the law.
As my coworker says: It doesn't matter what the law is, it is still very stupid and also rude [to motorists] to cycle on the road. Or sometimes he says: Just cause it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
I think if one wants to reduce the incidents with the few rude ones out there one needs to target them with an effort to change their attitudes (good luck), not educate them on what they already begrudgingly know. The other thing that might help is to reach new drivers about attitudes about cyclists before they develop habits in how they treat them when motoring.
Al
genec
03-12-08, 04:32 PM
I tend to agree. I think cases where cyclists are harassed or treated poorly or dangerously by motorists stem mainly from personal issues of the perp. Some will bully anything that seems lesser to to them. Some will get overly impatient no matter who is slowing them down. It's always easier to let it out on a non-enclosed cyclist vs. a garbage truck driver for example.
I think the vast majority of driver know cyclist are legally allowed to use the roadway. However some don't agree with the law and some don't care about the law.
I can't help but reflect on the attitude displayed by that retired Arizona patrol officer... that knew the laws and flat out thought that bikes just don't belong.
I tend to think there are four types of motorist out there:
1) Know the law and are co-operative.
2) Don't know the law and are relatively indifferent.
3) Don't know the law and are hostile
4) Know the law and don't care.
I think the majority of motorists fit category 2... thus are OK with cyclists as long as they don't feel impeded. I feel that few folks fit into category 1... heck few cyclists "know the laws."
The problem is the category 3 and 4 folks can ruin your whole day. You may deal with 99% category 2 and not have any problems... then along comes category 4... it only takes one.
I think the vast majority of driver know cyclist are legally allowed to use the roadway. However some don't agree with the law and some don't care about the law.
I can't help but reflect on the attitude displayed by that retired Arizona patrol officer... that knew the laws and flat out thought that bikes just don't belong.
I tend to think there are four types of motorist out there:
1) Know the law and are co-operative.
2) Don't know the law and are relatively indifferent.
3) Don't know the law and are hostile
4) Know the law and don't care.
I think the majority of motorists fit category 2... thus are OK with cyclists as long as they don't feel impeded. I feel that few folks fit into category 1... heck few cyclists "know the laws."
The problem is the category 3 and 4 folks can ruin your whole day. You may deal with 99% category 2 and not have any problems... then along comes category 4... it only takes one.
John Forester
03-12-08, 06:52 PM
I have never...never seen, heard or read anything from any official motoring organization about bicycles not belonging on the road. (junk available on the internet notwithstanding)
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I think I'm pretty representative of the experience of most drivers. The 'superstition' you describe is probably real, to some degree, but has nothing to do with bike facilities or a motorist conspiracy.
I stand by my observation that it has more to do with individual driver's attitudes. The majority of motorists are respectful of cyclists. If that were not the case, the statistics on accidents and injuries would be significantly higher.
:):)
Yes, but you are ignoring the nuances. The motoring organizations cannot say that the law prohibits cyclists from using thr roadway (except where there is a mandatory sidepath law), but the motoring organizations are quite clear that the law restricts cyclists' right to operate as legitimate drivers of vehicles. That is the official version, and it seeps into public consciousness as cyclists don't belong on the roadway. Notice that none of the present motoring organizations, so far as I know, teach that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Notice also that I have never written that this has to do with either bike facilities or a motorist conspiracy. The superstition started decades before bike facilities were thought of seriously; indeed, it was the superstition that enabled the bikeway program to be established. This is not a conspiracy of motorists; they don't see any need to conspire, because they all believe, as does most of the non-motoring public, that cyclists don't really belong on the roadway. It is as silly to call this a conspiracy as it would be to call belief in something else that most Americans believe, say in the Judeo-Christian heritage, to be a conspiracy. When everybody believes it, no conspiracy is necessary.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I think I'm pretty representative of the experience of most drivers. The 'superstition' you describe is probably real, to some degree, but has nothing to do with bike facilities or a motorist conspiracy.
I stand by my observation that it has more to do with individual driver's attitudes. The majority of motorists are respectful of cyclists. If that were not the case, the statistics on accidents and injuries would be significantly higher.
:):)
Yes, but you are ignoring the nuances. The motoring organizations cannot say that the law prohibits cyclists from using thr roadway (except where there is a mandatory sidepath law), but the motoring organizations are quite clear that the law restricts cyclists' right to operate as legitimate drivers of vehicles. That is the official version, and it seeps into public consciousness as cyclists don't belong on the roadway. Notice that none of the present motoring organizations, so far as I know, teach that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Notice also that I have never written that this has to do with either bike facilities or a motorist conspiracy. The superstition started decades before bike facilities were thought of seriously; indeed, it was the superstition that enabled the bikeway program to be established. This is not a conspiracy of motorists; they don't see any need to conspire, because they all believe, as does most of the non-motoring public, that cyclists don't really belong on the roadway. It is as silly to call this a conspiracy as it would be to call belief in something else that most Americans believe, say in the Judeo-Christian heritage, to be a conspiracy. When everybody believes it, no conspiracy is necessary.
John Forester
03-12-08, 07:00 PM
So unless that "idea" is somehow dashed in the minds of motorists... then it will continue to prevail.
Since by shear numbers alone, motorists well outnumber cyclists, expecting that "idea" to go away when many motorists aren't even aware of cyclists' legal rights to the road, is a pretty far fetched thought.
Perhaps bikeways do endorse those negative ideas... but the bottom line is that motorists will have those same thoughts unless there is a huge campaign to educate them. Such a huge campaign could also endorse vehicular cycling... and such a campaign may also be less costly then the current bikeways direction of some advocates. Yet such a campaign has never occurred and has not been proposed by any cycling advocacy group that I am aware of.
Could it be that in spite of "the motoring organizations", cyclists too would like their "own" roads?
It is relatively unimportant what the general public believes about cyclists' right to operate as drivers of vehicles. What is extremely important is that this superstition never be officially recognized so that it can be enforced against us. That is what we must protect ourselves against. The formal opposition to the bikeway superstitions, demonstrating that they are superstitions contrary to engineering knowledge and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, is a vital part in preventing those in charge from being able to make superstition the official base for policy and acts. Those officials with some sense of engineering and scientific ethics will oppose such a change, provided that we keep providing them with facts and reason.
Since by shear numbers alone, motorists well outnumber cyclists, expecting that "idea" to go away when many motorists aren't even aware of cyclists' legal rights to the road, is a pretty far fetched thought.
Perhaps bikeways do endorse those negative ideas... but the bottom line is that motorists will have those same thoughts unless there is a huge campaign to educate them. Such a huge campaign could also endorse vehicular cycling... and such a campaign may also be less costly then the current bikeways direction of some advocates. Yet such a campaign has never occurred and has not been proposed by any cycling advocacy group that I am aware of.
Could it be that in spite of "the motoring organizations", cyclists too would like their "own" roads?
It is relatively unimportant what the general public believes about cyclists' right to operate as drivers of vehicles. What is extremely important is that this superstition never be officially recognized so that it can be enforced against us. That is what we must protect ourselves against. The formal opposition to the bikeway superstitions, demonstrating that they are superstitions contrary to engineering knowledge and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, is a vital part in preventing those in charge from being able to make superstition the official base for policy and acts. Those officials with some sense of engineering and scientific ethics will oppose such a change, provided that we keep providing them with facts and reason.
MarkS
03-12-08, 07:23 PM
Increasing the number of cyclists on the road will increase the number of people who are aware that cyclists have the rights to be there -- since most cyclists also drive. Bike lanes help people visualize getting out there and doing it. It may be a superstition to worry about about traffic behind you. Then again it may be a superstition to worry about dancing in a lightning storm carrying a metal umbrella. Superstition or not, the worry prevents people from trying it.
The blah-blah about education campaigns is just Stone-walling. There's never been and never will be a large scale cycling education campaign. Heck, 45,000 Americans die every year due to automobiles and there's no one worrying about automobile education.
Education is illusory. Bike lanes are real.
The blah-blah about education campaigns is just Stone-walling. There's never been and never will be a large scale cycling education campaign. Heck, 45,000 Americans die every year due to automobiles and there's no one worrying about automobile education.
Education is illusory. Bike lanes are real.
aMull
03-12-08, 08:12 PM
Why would anyone be happier without bike facilities? It's like asking will drivers be happier without car facilities. If there were bike lanes, lower speed limits etc etc here in Toronto, i'd be out there even during the worst scenarios. I commute to school quite often, and sometimes ask myself how i even do it. Honestly i don't really blame people for being afraid to bike commute, considering how the situation is.
The Human Car
03-12-08, 08:47 PM
Some will get overly impatient no matter who is slowing them down. It's always easier to let it out on a non-enclosed cyclist vs. a garbage truck driver for example.
This bit really triggered something that I have running in the back of my head and that is the depersonalization/dehumanizing of driving an enclosed vehicle and the only way to communicate with your fellow human beings is via the horn, a short tap meaning: "Yo" to the bit more prolonged honk: "$#%#@$%#" to the sustained honk: "&#*&%*^ %&@^($&*^ #@&^&*@* ^*&@#^$ ^@@*$(#@$(_@$..." Like the primitive chimpanzee all we have to communicate is various screeches, screams and warring trumpeting sounds.
I wounder if our battle to win acceptance on the road is about our acceptance or with the very nature of accommodating the automobile over people who drive an automobile. Think about it, if we were to recreate an environment and a language where people had to get along cooperatively would we remove words like, "Excuse me, kind sir", "Good day", "I'm sorry." The lack of niceties really makes or breaks a cooperative setting.
I was in a convince store and the guy ahead of me "Give me two hot dogs. No, not those! Those hot dogs." (This went on for a bit without any pointing or descriptive words.)
Clerk: "Here you are."
"Give me two hot dogs!"
"Right here and that will be $x.xx"
"Yo, #$^%&#, I said I want two hot dogs!"
"You want two more hot dogs?"
"That's what I have been saying."
It is almost like the English language is becoming minimalistic mimicking communication in the car.
This bit really triggered something that I have running in the back of my head and that is the depersonalization/dehumanizing of driving an enclosed vehicle and the only way to communicate with your fellow human beings is via the horn, a short tap meaning: "Yo" to the bit more prolonged honk: "$#%#@$%#" to the sustained honk: "&#*&%*^ %&@^($&*^ #@&^&*@* ^*&@#^$ ^@@*$(#@$(_@$..." Like the primitive chimpanzee all we have to communicate is various screeches, screams and warring trumpeting sounds.
I wounder if our battle to win acceptance on the road is about our acceptance or with the very nature of accommodating the automobile over people who drive an automobile. Think about it, if we were to recreate an environment and a language where people had to get along cooperatively would we remove words like, "Excuse me, kind sir", "Good day", "I'm sorry." The lack of niceties really makes or breaks a cooperative setting.
I was in a convince store and the guy ahead of me "Give me two hot dogs. No, not those! Those hot dogs." (This went on for a bit without any pointing or descriptive words.)
Clerk: "Here you are."
"Give me two hot dogs!"
"Right here and that will be $x.xx"
"Yo, #$^%&#, I said I want two hot dogs!"
"You want two more hot dogs?"
"That's what I have been saying."
It is almost like the English language is becoming minimalistic mimicking communication in the car.
gosmsgo
03-12-08, 08:54 PM
Why would anyone be happier without bike facilities? It's like asking will drivers be happier without car facilities. If there were bike lanes, lower speed limits etc etc here in Toronto, i'd be out there even during the worst scenarios. I commute to school quite often, and sometimes ask myself how i even do it. Honestly i don't really blame people for being afraid to bike commute, considering how the situation is.
I think if you had a good understanding of bike lanes and side paths you too would be mostly against them.
Their only positive is that they encourage the incompetent to cycle.....That positive is outweighed by the fact that they encourage the incompetent to cycle.
I only hope that the bicycling culture becomes as strong as the driving culture. You know when you first start driving they do not put you on faulty infrastructure so you feel more comfortable. For example, you do not drive in one lane all the time regardless of where you want to go because you MIGHT be afraid of changing lanes. Bike lanes put a possible straight thru cyclists on the right side of a possible right turning car and that is a place that a traffic engineer would never put another type of vehicle. They are designed like that so that cyclists do not have to change lanes which is something that makes newbies uncomfortable and would discourage them from cycling. You know what is even more uncomfortable? Being crushed by a right turning truck. See portland as an example of bike lanes directly leading to peoples skulls getting smashed.
Back to my point. The driving culture is strong enough that people actually work through their uncomfort and nervousness of driving and work and work to become competent drivers. Lets hope cycling becomes the same way so that cities stop painting stripes in places that they do not belong to encourage axxes to exit drivers seats and get onto a bike seat.
At the bike summit the bike guy from portland said so himself. Your much safer just taking the lane and letting the cars pile up behind you.....you're safer but thats not "comfortable" for new riders. Cities are building things that they know are dangerous in an effort to get the lazy and incompetent to ride. That is a dangerous game and I'm not sure how I feel about it.
Bike lanes do not belong in a downtown urban setting. Filtering on said bike lanes is like playing russian roulette and its mandated by law.
I think if you had a good understanding of bike lanes and side paths you too would be mostly against them.
Their only positive is that they encourage the incompetent to cycle.....That positive is outweighed by the fact that they encourage the incompetent to cycle.
I only hope that the bicycling culture becomes as strong as the driving culture. You know when you first start driving they do not put you on faulty infrastructure so you feel more comfortable. For example, you do not drive in one lane all the time regardless of where you want to go because you MIGHT be afraid of changing lanes. Bike lanes put a possible straight thru cyclists on the right side of a possible right turning car and that is a place that a traffic engineer would never put another type of vehicle. They are designed like that so that cyclists do not have to change lanes which is something that makes newbies uncomfortable and would discourage them from cycling. You know what is even more uncomfortable? Being crushed by a right turning truck. See portland as an example of bike lanes directly leading to peoples skulls getting smashed.
Back to my point. The driving culture is strong enough that people actually work through their uncomfort and nervousness of driving and work and work to become competent drivers. Lets hope cycling becomes the same way so that cities stop painting stripes in places that they do not belong to encourage axxes to exit drivers seats and get onto a bike seat.
At the bike summit the bike guy from portland said so himself. Your much safer just taking the lane and letting the cars pile up behind you.....you're safer but thats not "comfortable" for new riders. Cities are building things that they know are dangerous in an effort to get the lazy and incompetent to ride. That is a dangerous game and I'm not sure how I feel about it.
Bike lanes do not belong in a downtown urban setting. Filtering on said bike lanes is like playing russian roulette and its mandated by law.
gosmsgo
03-12-08, 08:56 PM
Education is illusory. Bike lanes are real.
PM me. I teach bike education for a living and its "large scale." I would be happy to talk to you about the success that I have had.
I'm not anti-bike lane. I am anti-dumb bike lanes that get old women crushed by right turning dump trucks etc.
PM me. I teach bike education for a living and its "large scale." I would be happy to talk to you about the success that I have had.
I'm not anti-bike lane. I am anti-dumb bike lanes that get old women crushed by right turning dump trucks etc.
Bekologist
03-12-08, 10:08 PM
Bike lanes put a possible straight thru cyclists on the right side of a possible right turning car
Actually, so do unaccomodated roads as well as general vehicular cycling technique, G.
What is to be done?
Actually, so do unaccomodated roads as well as general vehicular cycling technique, G.
What is to be done?
Script
03-13-08, 07:07 AM
What is to be done?
Exactly... Am I to start 'taking the lane' during rush hour on the 45MPH(HAH!) feeder roads? In a sense this feels a little like a revolution. And I am not willing to risk life and limb for this cause.:(
We could start a campaign to eliminate all bike facilities. That would show the motoring organizations and motoring public that we mean business. I'm sure they would then see that we belong on the road right in the mix with motorized vehicles.
Or we could campaign for separate transportation corridors for non-motorized vehicles. Then the motoring public would be happy that we cyclists are finally out of their way.
What's the issue? Speed.
There is no easy answer. But one thing is certain... repeating the same things over and over again and expecting different results is a pretty pure definition of insanity.:D
Exactly... Am I to start 'taking the lane' during rush hour on the 45MPH(HAH!) feeder roads? In a sense this feels a little like a revolution. And I am not willing to risk life and limb for this cause.:(
We could start a campaign to eliminate all bike facilities. That would show the motoring organizations and motoring public that we mean business. I'm sure they would then see that we belong on the road right in the mix with motorized vehicles.
Or we could campaign for separate transportation corridors for non-motorized vehicles. Then the motoring public would be happy that we cyclists are finally out of their way.
What's the issue? Speed.
There is no easy answer. But one thing is certain... repeating the same things over and over again and expecting different results is a pretty pure definition of insanity.:D
gosmsgo
03-13-08, 07:38 AM
Exactly... Am I to start 'taking the lane' during rush hour on the 45MPH(HAH!) feeder roads? In a sense this feels a little like a revolution. And I am not willing to risk life and limb for this cause.:(
We could start a campaign to eliminate all bike facilities. That would show the motoring organizations and motoring public that we mean business. I'm sure they would then see that we belong on the road right in the mix with motorized vehicles.
Or we could campaign for separate transportation corridors for non-motorized vehicles. Then the motoring public would be happy that we cyclists are finally out of their way.
What's the issue? Speed.
There is no easy answer. But one thing is certain... repeating the same things over and over again and expecting different results is a pretty pure definition of insanity.:D
I do. I take the lane on any road I am at rather than filter up to the side.
I do this every intersection and I do not have a car and have never ridden a city bus. It works. Here is a tip. You have to signal and SCAN. Scan several times. Take a road 1 course offered through the LAB by a competent LCI.
Motorists who see you do not run you over. In other words new riders often think (if they will admit it or not) that by taking the place of a car in that line of stopped traffic that people will become so enraged that they will just mow them down. That of course is silly. The real danger is that while you are filtering the light turns green and now as you are side by side with a motor vehicle who does not know you are there they turn right.
We could start a campaign to eliminate all bike facilities. That would show the motoring organizations and motoring public that we mean business. I'm sure they would then see that we belong on the road right in the mix with motorized vehicles.
Or we could campaign for separate transportation corridors for non-motorized vehicles. Then the motoring public would be happy that we cyclists are finally out of their way.
What's the issue? Speed.
There is no easy answer. But one thing is certain... repeating the same things over and over again and expecting different results is a pretty pure definition of insanity.:D
I do. I take the lane on any road I am at rather than filter up to the side.
I do this every intersection and I do not have a car and have never ridden a city bus. It works. Here is a tip. You have to signal and SCAN. Scan several times. Take a road 1 course offered through the LAB by a competent LCI.
Motorists who see you do not run you over. In other words new riders often think (if they will admit it or not) that by taking the place of a car in that line of stopped traffic that people will become so enraged that they will just mow them down. That of course is silly. The real danger is that while you are filtering the light turns green and now as you are side by side with a motor vehicle who does not know you are there they turn right.
gosmsgo
03-13-08, 07:39 AM
Actually, so do unaccomodated roads as well as general vehicular cycling technique, G.
What is to be done?
Signal, scan and move over into the regular flow of traffic. That avoids any chance of a hook and you will notice after doing this for a few months that its far less stressful. You can just go when the light is green and there is no need to worry if that car beside you is going to turn right.
What is to be done?
Signal, scan and move over into the regular flow of traffic. That avoids any chance of a hook and you will notice after doing this for a few months that its far less stressful. You can just go when the light is green and there is no need to worry if that car beside you is going to turn right.
Script
03-13-08, 08:03 AM
I do. I take the lane on any road I am at rather than filter up to the side.
I do this every intersection and I do not have a car and have never ridden a city bus. It works. Here is a tip. You have to signal and SCAN. Scan several times. Take a road 1 course offered through the LAB by a competent LCI.
Motorists who see you do not run you over. In other words new riders often think (if they will admit it or not) that by taking the place of a car in that line of stopped traffic that people will become so enraged that they will just mow them down. That of course is silly. The real danger is that while you are filtering the light turns green and now as you are side by side with a motor vehicle who does not know you are there they turn right.
My practice has always been to take my rightful place in a traffic line at an intersection or signal. That is not the issue. 'Filtering' up to the side is the kind of thing that does reinforce the notion that cyclists are obnoxious. Have you ever been irritated by the motorcycle that squeezes between the lanes during a traffic backup? Forgot, you don't have a car.:o
You are talking nuance. Forget about traffic lights and city traffic. Try any feeder artery where the average speed is somewhere north of 50mph, no bike lane and go ahead and 'take the lane', slowing up the entire line of traffic. Sure, maybe it's legal but it's also the kind of exercise that causes road rage.
It will be pointed out that this is exactly why one must do so. To fight the 'superstition' that cyclists don't belong on the road. Maybe so, but I'll reiterate...this is not a cause I'm willing to risk life and limb for. I was almost going to say; 'Of course no one will hit you!' , but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig.
:)
I do this every intersection and I do not have a car and have never ridden a city bus. It works. Here is a tip. You have to signal and SCAN. Scan several times. Take a road 1 course offered through the LAB by a competent LCI.
Motorists who see you do not run you over. In other words new riders often think (if they will admit it or not) that by taking the place of a car in that line of stopped traffic that people will become so enraged that they will just mow them down. That of course is silly. The real danger is that while you are filtering the light turns green and now as you are side by side with a motor vehicle who does not know you are there they turn right.
My practice has always been to take my rightful place in a traffic line at an intersection or signal. That is not the issue. 'Filtering' up to the side is the kind of thing that does reinforce the notion that cyclists are obnoxious. Have you ever been irritated by the motorcycle that squeezes between the lanes during a traffic backup? Forgot, you don't have a car.:o
You are talking nuance. Forget about traffic lights and city traffic. Try any feeder artery where the average speed is somewhere north of 50mph, no bike lane and go ahead and 'take the lane', slowing up the entire line of traffic. Sure, maybe it's legal but it's also the kind of exercise that causes road rage.
It will be pointed out that this is exactly why one must do so. To fight the 'superstition' that cyclists don't belong on the road. Maybe so, but I'll reiterate...this is not a cause I'm willing to risk life and limb for. I was almost going to say; 'Of course no one will hit you!' , but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig.
:)
noisebeam
03-13-08, 08:47 AM
This bit really triggered something that I have running in the back of my head and that is the depersonalization/dehumanizing of driving an enclosed vehicle and the only way to communicate with your fellow human beings is via the horn, a short tap meaning: "Yo" to the bit more prolonged honk: "$#%#@$%#" to the sustained honk: "&#*&%*^ %&@^($&*^ #@&^&*@* ^*&@#^$ ^@@*$(#@$(_@$..." Like the primitive chimpanzee all we have to communicate is various screeches, screams and warring trumpeting sounds.
I wounder if our battle to win acceptance on the road is about our acceptance or with the very nature of accommodating the automobile over people who drive an automobile. Think about it, if we were to recreate an environment and a language where people had to get along cooperatively would we remove words like, "Excuse me, kind sir", "Good day", "I'm sorry." The lack of niceties really makes or breaks a cooperative setting.
[cut example]
It is almost like the English language is becoming minimalistic mimicking communication in the car.
I wrote about similar thoughts in a different thread. There is a 'language' in how drivers of trucks, cars communicate to each other. Some is subtle, other very physical.
I've also thought I'd be nice if there was also a bell on every motor vehicle to be used for non-emergency communication, especially with other drivers who are not in an enclosed vehicle. Maybe a thank you type sound.
Al
I wounder if our battle to win acceptance on the road is about our acceptance or with the very nature of accommodating the automobile over people who drive an automobile. Think about it, if we were to recreate an environment and a language where people had to get along cooperatively would we remove words like, "Excuse me, kind sir", "Good day", "I'm sorry." The lack of niceties really makes or breaks a cooperative setting.
[cut example]
It is almost like the English language is becoming minimalistic mimicking communication in the car.
I wrote about similar thoughts in a different thread. There is a 'language' in how drivers of trucks, cars communicate to each other. Some is subtle, other very physical.
I've also thought I'd be nice if there was also a bell on every motor vehicle to be used for non-emergency communication, especially with other drivers who are not in an enclosed vehicle. Maybe a thank you type sound.
Al
Bekologist
03-13-08, 08:49 AM
sorry, gosomo, but with roads with any amount of steady traffic, moderately wide lanes, parking and curb cuts, etc, a vehicular cyclist is MOST DEFINETLY going to be to the right of potentially turning or parking traffic, gosmoso at many times during a urban/surburban ride.
your talking about taking the lane instead of filtering?
while riding cityscapes, there's potential of crossing, parking or turning traffic from about EVERY car that passes you, gosgmo. do you never have cars pass you?
your talking about taking the lane instead of filtering?
while riding cityscapes, there's potential of crossing, parking or turning traffic from about EVERY car that passes you, gosgmo. do you never have cars pass you?
gosmsgo
03-13-08, 08:51 AM
It will be pointed out that this is exactly why one must do so. To fight the 'superstition' that cyclists don't belong on the road. Maybe so, but I'll reiterate...this is not a cause I'm willing to risk life and limb for. I was almost going to say; 'Of course no one will hit you!' , but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig.
:)
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I would rather slow traffic than be crushed by a right turning truck.
I do not do anything to try to "show my rights to the road." I'm just trying to make it home at the end of the day like anyone else.
:)
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I would rather slow traffic than be crushed by a right turning truck.
I do not do anything to try to "show my rights to the road." I'm just trying to make it home at the end of the day like anyone else.
gosmsgo
03-13-08, 09:02 AM
sorry, gosomo, but with roads with any amount of steady traffic, moderately wide lanes, parking and curb cuts, etc, a vehicular cyclist is MOST DEFINETLY going to be to the right of potentially turning or parking traffic, gosmoso at many times during a urban/surburban ride.
your talking about taking the lane instead of filtering?
there's potential of crossing, parking or turning traffic from about EVERY car that passes you, gosgmo. do you never have cars pass you?
The really large risk occurs at intersections.
THis is what you are talking about....
I'm riding my bike at 15 mph toward the right and a car passes me or almost passes me and turns right. That is rare and would involve the driver seeing me and still deciding to turn right. Yes, that happens but I ride everyday and that happens about once per year when not riding in a bike lane. Of course I may take a more left position than many of you.
Filtering, in a bike lane or not, causes the risk of a driver who passed you a long time ago turning right without knowing that you have since ridden right up beside them. If your driving a semi or dump truck its darn near impossible to see a cyclists riding up beside you on the right.
People die like that all the time. Just read these boards and you will see.
your talking about taking the lane instead of filtering?
there's potential of crossing, parking or turning traffic from about EVERY car that passes you, gosgmo. do you never have cars pass you?
The really large risk occurs at intersections.
THis is what you are talking about....
I'm riding my bike at 15 mph toward the right and a car passes me or almost passes me and turns right. That is rare and would involve the driver seeing me and still deciding to turn right. Yes, that happens but I ride everyday and that happens about once per year when not riding in a bike lane. Of course I may take a more left position than many of you.
Filtering, in a bike lane or not, causes the risk of a driver who passed you a long time ago turning right without knowing that you have since ridden right up beside them. If your driving a semi or dump truck its darn near impossible to see a cyclists riding up beside you on the right.
People die like that all the time. Just read these boards and you will see.
Bekologist
03-13-08, 09:10 AM
on the average cityscape ride of an hour's duration there's going to be hundreds of potential crossing incidents for bicyclists, gosgmo, not once a year. oh you mean you get right hooked once a year.
yeah. that stuff happens, even when you're in the middle of the lane- happened to me a couple of months ago, hooked by the guy in the ajacant lane with no indication they were going to turn across a full lane of traffic to make a turn.
but for average riders on an average city ride, they will encounter hundreds of crossing/intersection conflicts. EVERY ride.
yeah. that stuff happens, even when you're in the middle of the lane- happened to me a couple of months ago, hooked by the guy in the ajacant lane with no indication they were going to turn across a full lane of traffic to make a turn.
but for average riders on an average city ride, they will encounter hundreds of crossing/intersection conflicts. EVERY ride.
gosmsgo
03-13-08, 09:35 AM
on the average cityscape ride of an hour's duration there's going to be hundreds of potential crossing incidents for bicyclists, gosgmo, not once a year. oh you mean you get right hooked once a year.
yeah. that stuff happens, even when you're in the middle of the lane- happened to me a couple of months ago, hooked by the guy in the ajacant lane with no indication they were going to turn across a full lane of traffic to make a turn.
but for average riders on an average city ride, they will encounter hundreds of crossing/intersection conflicts. EVERY ride.
I dont get right hooked once per year. If you didnt understand my previous post this conversation is going no where.
Maybe you bike in drunkville. I have cycled all over the US in several major cities and have never had anyone do what you just described.
yeah. that stuff happens, even when you're in the middle of the lane- happened to me a couple of months ago, hooked by the guy in the ajacant lane with no indication they were going to turn across a full lane of traffic to make a turn.
but for average riders on an average city ride, they will encounter hundreds of crossing/intersection conflicts. EVERY ride.
I dont get right hooked once per year. If you didnt understand my previous post this conversation is going no where.
Maybe you bike in drunkville. I have cycled all over the US in several major cities and have never had anyone do what you just described.
gosmsgo
03-13-08, 09:36 AM
on the average cityscape ride of an hour's duration there's going to be hundreds of potential crossing incidents for bicyclists, gosgmo, not once a year. oh you mean you get right hooked once a year.
yeah. that stuff happens, even when you're in the middle of the lane- happened to me a couple of months ago, hooked by the guy in the ajacant lane with no indication they were going to turn across a full lane of traffic to make a turn.
but for average riders on an average city ride, they will encounter hundreds of crossing/intersection conflicts. EVERY ride.
PM me and I'll give you my phone number. Maybe i'm just not explaining the situation clearly.
yeah. that stuff happens, even when you're in the middle of the lane- happened to me a couple of months ago, hooked by the guy in the ajacant lane with no indication they were going to turn across a full lane of traffic to make a turn.
but for average riders on an average city ride, they will encounter hundreds of crossing/intersection conflicts. EVERY ride.
PM me and I'll give you my phone number. Maybe i'm just not explaining the situation clearly.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.