Advocacy & Safety - Why are cyclists still viewed as unwanted stepchildren?

Why are cyclists still viewed as unwanted stepchildren on the public roads?

As an American, I was taught from an early age that you could go as far as you wanted to, regardless of who you were or where you came from, if you only had ingenuity. I live in the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, where the playing field is level and you can rise as far as your ability takes you. Isn't that the America you were taught about?

But on the public roads, we commuting cyclists are "tolerated." Sometimes, we are actually showcased as warriors fighting for clean air. But all in all, we are not seen as a meaningful part of the American economic machine. We are, in short, an oddity.

But those of us who ride day-to-day know that bicycle transportation is not only highly practical and beneficial, it's a freedom. It's as much an American freedom as the right to breathe.

If people are free to drive wherever they will, if they are free to start a business, if they are free to get an education, if they are free to vote, if they are free to keep and bear arms, they should be free to cycle on any public road.

Gee why do you make cycling sound so ideological?
and what about those wimpy Europeans?
They seem to have a lot more cycling "freedom" than Americans.

Rights not used will atrephy (sp)

As an American, I was taught from an early age that you could go as far as you wanted to, regardless of who you were or where you came from, if you only had ingenuity. I live in the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, where the playing field is level and you can rise as far as your ability takes you. Isn't that the America you were taught about?

And you believed it?

Sucker.

The earlier reply about atrophy is correct. Yes, I for one equate the First Amendment with my right to bike..Do you have to have a stinky car to have the right of travel.?
I agree, my right to commute to the store or to work is just that- a right. If I choose not to own a car or can't afford one, I have no means of getting myself to work..This right, I think is fundamentally an American right..
We are all involved in the political process if we choose. Too often roads get built because developers, business interests demand them... I suggest we are less popular because we do not have the lobbying power of petroleum or car dealerships batting for us...
The American Bicycle League just is not a big hitter. Maybe have your cycling club show up at the county road commission, demanding our rights and that our needs be addressed...After all addressing our needs, since we will be on the bike one way or another, is really a matter of safety for all...
Just getting out on the road with our bikes, with enough numbers, is a way of demanding our rights and saying we are not going away.

I suggest we are less popular because we do not have the lobbying power of petroleum or car dealerships batting for us...

yeah, in the large economic picture, the car industry has big bucks... the American car companies employ a lot of people... road consturction is a HUGE business... auto insurance... OIL... auto-repair... even used-car sales has a lot of money-making potential... and most businesses cover the cost of FREE parking for their customers to make it easier to spend money... plus the government allocates HUGE amounts for auto interests (road construction, highway patrol, traffic control, rush-hour projects, etc)

and in comparision, cycling is inexpensive and does not offer near the "earnings" potential... bike sales revenues are not so high... bike companies employment hardly affects the economy... construction for bike lanes/paths/parking/facilities is inexpensive... bike insurance is virtually non-existent... there is no cost for OIL... bike maintenance is inexpensive...

of course it is somewhat ironic, that precisely BECAUSE cycling is efficient, safe and cheap, it is also LESS PROFITABLE... one of the downsides to capitalism

Why are cyclists still viewed as unwanted stepchildren on the public roads?

Simply put, because so many cycling "advocates" are happy to perpetuate that view at every opportunity. Be it through the apparent willingness to accept segregated second-rate "facilities" as an alternative to their rightful place on the road, be it through their apparent willingness to allow themselves to be held accountable for everything that's ever been wrong in the world because a cyclist somewhere at some point broke some obscure law, be it through their point blank refusal to ever attempt to sell the benefits of cycling to the individual (the people we really need to target), be it through the constant "cycling is dangerous" message sent out without ever comparing this apparent "danger" to that of the alternatives.

I have found the best way to deal with it is arrogance. Simply put, let people view you as unwanted stepchildren or worse. It's their problem - not yours.

Some of us are only tolerated pretty much anywhere we go and irrespective of what we might be doing. It's too early in the AM for me, so I'll be blunt: welcome to the rest of the world.

As an American, I was taught from an early age that you could go as far as you wanted to, regardless of who you were or where you came from, if you only had ingenuity. I live in the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, where the playing field is level and you can rise as far as your ability takes you. Isn't that the America you were taught about

And you believed it?

Sucker.
I'm glad you noticed the inconsistency of the situation, Allister. But I'm not sure the problem of cyclists being marginalized by an ever-expanding, automobile-dominant transportation system is unique to America.

Simply put, let people view you as unwanted stepchildren or worse. It's their problem - not yours.
I agree that there it's their problem, but it becomes my problem when those collective attitudes work together to restrict my freedoms.

Clearchannel. :D

Gee why do you make cycling sound so ideological?
and what about those wimpy Europeans?
They seem to have a lot more cycling "freedom" than Americans.
Sorry, I knew this would be a sticky point when I went on about "American freedoms," but I was trying to make a point. I never meant that cycling was an American thing, or that America was better than any other place, etc. Most of all, I didn't mean to exclude people from other parts of the world.

The point was that many Americans believe strongly their government has a certain responsibility to protect their freedoms. I was trying to include, as one of those freedoms, the right for cyclists to have unrestricted, safe access to the roads. I was trying to hold authorities accountable to the ideals they claim to espouse.

As for Europeans having more cycling freedom than Americans, this might be only partially true. In some places in Europe, cycling is far more restricted than in America. I wouldn't want to be forced to ride at a snail's pace on a side path, for example. I want to ride on the road, where I can get to my destination quickly, safely and conveniently.

It is not just cyclists that suffer this condition. Pedestrians, runners, vegetarians, supporters of 3rd political parties (in the USA), non-TV watchers, the Amish, Native Americans, or almost anyone that has a deeply held belief that flies in the face of modern Western culture is subject to the kind of treatment that cyclists get (or worse).

Not only does the average person disagree with you, they cannot conceieve of how a "sensible" person could arrive at such a view. Such is the power of memes. They go almost unquestioned. Of course I own a car. TV ? How can that be bad !. Plastic food, shoved at you through a hole in the wall as you drive by ? What's wrong with that ?

Most folks don't understand things like cars, tvs, and fast food intellectually. That is their views are not the result of a careful thought process, but rather something transmitted to them and accepted without question. If you force them to examine these, they get unsettled and disturbed. When folks get unsettled, they tend to lash out, or dismiss you, or ridicule you, depending on their personality.

Dan

Sorry, I knew this would be a sticky point when I went on about "American freedoms," but I was trying to make a point. I never meant that cycling was an American thing, or that America was better than any other place, etc. Most of all, I didn't mean to exclude people from other parts of the world.

The point was that many Americans believe strongly their government has a certain responsibility to protect their freedoms. I was trying to include, as one of those freedoms, the right for cyclists to have unrestricted, safe access to the roads. I was trying to hold authorities accountable to the ideals they claim to espouse.

As for Europeans having more cycling freedom than Americans, this might be only partially true. In some places in Europe, cycling is far more restricted than in America. I wouldn't want to be forced to ride at a snail's pace on a side path, for example. I want to ride on the road, where I can get to my destination quickly, safely and conveniently.
We are of like mind on this matter..Having toured by bike in Europe three times, I must admit my impression is biking/commuting is more universally accepted, even seemingly worshiped by far more passers by than here.'
that being said, because our roads are wider, sometimes we have a tactical advantage here. But motorists are far less accepting of us here than in Europe... I say, I recall coming into a new town in France/Spain and locals on the street would applaud us, when they saw us arrive with Panniers and some with USA jerseys...Never seen that happen here.
We want to preserve our rights as cyclists, I suggest join advocacy groups...Speak up at city/county road commissions..Write to the newspapers...
Don't use it , loose it...right.

I've made the point before that there is a cultural bias against cyclsts on the road and someone else has suggested that may be due (and I would agree with this assesment) because we cruise at a slower speed than traffic when it is not jammed up at the time.

I'd add that our minority (in numbers on the road) position doesn't help us politically.

All this flies in the face of ideals that should be embraced (like equality).

All I want is equal treatment.

Its the clothes.

I think it's simple: the majority perceives us as different and in its way.

...I recall coming into a new town in France/Spain and locals on the street would applaud us, when they saw us arrive with Panniers and some with USA jerseys...Never seen that happen here.
Me neither! But we might get cheered if we wore an NFL football team's jersey, even if all we ever did was sit on the couch and accumulate layers of beer-jelly.

"Wow, you're a Redskins fan? GO, REDSKINS, YA!"

....


But on the public roads, we commuting cyclists are "tolerated." Sometimes, we are actually showcased as warriors fighting for clean air. But all in all, we are not seen as a meaningful part of the American economic machine...

If people are free to drive wherever they will, if they are free to start a business, if they are free to get an education, if they are free to vote, if they are free to keep and bear arms, they should be free to cycle on any public road.

Little Big Man you are setting up a straw man and then getting all upset when it doesn't collapse in the face of your 'flawless logic.' I would not use the word 'meaningful part' of the american economic machine, but I would certainly use the word 'significant' part.

I don't understand the incredible difficulty people seem to have in accepting that the vast majority of our nations' roadways are designed for motorized transport. And the vast majority of vehicles have technology attached which is designed to make this transport easier (ease of turn signals, brake lights, backup lights, etc) as well as safer (air bags, seat belts, body design). Bicycles have very few of these features, if any. Ergo, they are secondary vehicles, and their riders should be intelligent enough to recognize them as such.


Your argument 'free to cycle on any public road' could be just as easily made by rollerbladers, skateboarders, wheelchair riders, pogo-stickers and belly bouncing teletubbies. Within reason, efforts are made to accomodate such users, just as within reason, efforts are made to accomodate cyclists. But to suggest they should be anything more except 'tolerated' on the roads is quite silly.


You could, of course, singlehandedly show just how incredibly efficient, 'meaningful,' and significant cycling is to our economy. The next time you order groceries, the next time you order bicycle parts, the next time you need an ambulance, whatever, insist that the goods/service be delivered to you by a guy on a bike! Until you do, don't grudge people who drive cars, trucks, and service vehicles to provide things for others, and i might add, don't get in their way, either.


roughstuff

We are a fly in the ointment of a total auto centric America. That's why I like riding in old city centers, lots of congestion means I can go faster than any car, and the people that live there are used driving with people using alternate forms of transport, that's why I hated leaving Chicago. Messengers also have drivers trained pretty well there, if they want to keep their windshield they don't screw with bikers.

Your argument 'free to cycle on any public road' could be just as easily made by rollerbladers, skateboarders, wheelchair riders, pogo-stickers and belly bouncing teletubbies. Within reason, efforts are made to accomodate such users, just as within reason, efforts are made to accomodate cyclists. But to suggest they should be anything more except 'tolerated' on the roads is quite silly.

You could, of course, singlehandedly show just how incredibly efficient, 'meaningful,' and significant cycling is to our economy. The next time you order groceries, the next time you order bicycle parts, the next time you need an ambulance, whatever, insist that the goods/service be delivered to you by a guy on a bike! Until you do, don't grudge people who drive cars, trucks, and service vehicles to provide things for others, and i might add, don't get in their way, either.

Roughstuff,

If you didn't find my post intelligent, at least you found it entertaining. Likewise, your post gave me a few chuckles!

To equate pogo-stickers, rollerbladers, and skateboarders with cyclists is a hoot. "Ya, mom, I'll see you after I get home from pogo-sticking to the mall." I have seen a rollerblader on a 35 mph. street, but he wasn't going to work, as far as I could tell.

No, I never suggested that we should try tying hundreds of bicyclists together like a team of horses to haul truck containers across the country. Or how about bicycle-ambulances? I agree, those things are just a little bit too far-fetched to attempt.

But riding a bicycle on the road a) is what road bicycles were designed for, b) is a privilege written into our traffic codes with specific rights, regulations and duties, c) a practice familiar to many generations of Americans historically,
and d) in danger of being curtailed by the people who believe that cyclists ride "secondary vehicles."

Roughstuff,



To equate pogo-stickers, rollerbladers, and skateboarders with cyclists is a hoot. "Ya, mom, I'll see you after I get home from pogo-sticking to the mall." I have seen a rollerblader on a 35 mph. street, but he wasn't going to work, as far as I could tell.

But riding a bicycle on the road a) is what road bicycles were designed for, b) is a privilege written into our traffic codes with specific rights, regulations and duties, c) a practice familiar to many generations of Americans historically,
and d) in danger of being curtailed by the people who believe that cyclists ride "secondary vehicles," ....

AHAHA!! But you conceded on the teletubbies!! Good boy!

Your final point makes sense..in fact, bicycles preceded autos on the road. But they have been superseded, as the horse-and-buggy have been. You certainly see many of them in Amish areas, but no one would ever argue that a horse-and-buggy is not a secondary vehicle.

roughstuff

but no one would ever argue that a horse-and-buggy is not a secondary vehicle.

Amish people do, many of the roads in Amishland are unpassable by regular cars, that's why my Pops has an SUV, but this is just nitpicking. Biking is tough on public roads, that's part of the reason I like it.

the Teletubbies remark was great!

Your argument 'free to cycle on any public road' could be just as easily made by rollerbladers, skateboarders, wheelchair riders, pogo-stickers and belly bouncing teletubbies. Within reason, efforts are made to accomodate such users, just as within reason, efforts are made to accomodate cyclists. But to suggest they should be anything more except 'tolerated' on the roads is quite silly. The difference, of course, is that in every state in this country, a bicycle is a vehicle, whereas none of the above are. This legal standing wasn't handed to anyone on a plate, and it doesn't come without some obvious historical realities, for example, that bicycles were the main impetus for paved roads in this country before the advent of the automobile. Wheelchair users are pedestrians by law, and should be treated as such. All the other above-mentioned categories are, by most state laws, toys or "play vehicles". Of course, there's always a chance that there'll be an active and successful advocacy movement nationwide to guarantee vehicle status to all belly bouncing teletubbies (I don't even wanna know how you know what this is...), but I'm not holding my breath.

FWIW, "bellybouncingteletubbiesforums.net" hasn't been registered yet...

We need to run out of fossil fuels ;)

Then we would have the roads to ourselves :D

Your argument 'free to cycle on any public road' could be just as easily made by rollerbladers, skateboarders, wheelchair riders, pogo-stickers and belly bouncing teletubbies. Within reason, efforts are made to accomodate such users, just as within reason, efforts are made to accomodate cyclists. But to suggest they should be anything more except 'tolerated' on the roads is quite silly.



roughstuff

I didn't make this law. And it obviously only applies to Illinois, but notice what it does say, not only do we have to follow the laws BUT WE SHALL BE GRANTED THE RIGHTS! And it does not include Segways, nor pogosticks.

We deserve better than tolerated.

625 ILCS 5/11-1502

§ 11-1502. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this Code, except as to special regulations in this Article XV and except as to those provisions of this Code which by their nature can have no application.

I didn't make this law.

...and I didn't make our law in B.C. either!


Rights and duties of operator of cycle

183 (1) In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.

It seems some motorists want to follow some laws that serve their convenience best and ignore others that are inconvenient for them.

I particularily like it when I get berated for riding 15 kms/hr under the speed limit by someone who drives 15 kms/hr over the speed limit.

I guess the real children are the ones who don't respect the law.

Some very interesting view points.

I think it comes down to marketing and money and the fact that the average wisdom of people can be likened to a squirrel.

The advertising industry wants to make you feel like crap. Your too fat, skinny, tall, short, dark, lonely, slow, stressed etc.

By showing unrealistic images of super-slim female models, muscular smooth-skinned men, expensive luxury and sports cars, , the 'coca-cola lifestyle', mobile/cell phones creating friends, fast food being 'fun' and 'exciting', dairy is good for you, get some pork on your fork..... it makes a lot of people feel like they are a bad person or have failed. They want to make up for it by consuming the goods that offer them a part of this promise. The American Dream (or Australian Dream). Buy a house in the suburbs, grab a wife (or husband), multiply and drive the neigborhood kids to football practice in your soccer-mom SUV.

In the west, unless your white, christian, male, married with 2.4 kids, drive a SUV, go shopping at the mall, eat fast food, you'll always be told and treated like your at the bottom by 'everybody'.

Riding a bike is about the same as dying your hair blue, you're a nutter.

Of course, it's all crap because who's actually happy no matter what they're doing and what they have? It all comes down to how you feel and live your life, not by how others judge you.

It's not me that's screwed up, its everybody else. I'll go and sit on me front porch now with my broomstick and poke and holler at anyone who gets to close...

;)

I'm glad you noticed the inconsistency of the situation, Allister. But I'm not sure the problem of cyclists being marginalized by an ever-expanding, automobile-dominant transportation system is unique to America.

No it's most certainly not. We just don't lumber ourselves with delusions about being able to 'go as far as you wanted to, regardless of who you were or where you came from, if you only had ingenuity.' That isn't and never has been true in the U.S. nor any other country.

In the west, unless your white, christian, male, married with 2.4 kids, drive a SUV, go shopping at the mall, eat fast food, you'll always be told and treated like your at the bottom by 'everybody'.

Riding a bike is about the same as dying your hair blue, you're a nutter.



I'm sorry, I certainly don't see myself as a 'nutter'. Your above description is not far from what I am, but I also ride a bike. I don't try to portray myself as being 'different' or a 'nutter' or any of the plethora of terms that cyclists use to descibe themselves to separate them from the masses. I am part of those masses - just a regular person doing regular things. I ride a bike for certain trips because it is the most practical and efficient choice of transport, not as some sort of political statement, or some misguided rebellion against some perception of what constitutes the dominant culture. And I still get treated like sh*t on the road.

Until we stop trying to present ourselves as fringe dwellers, we will continue to be treated as such. How about spreading the idea that cycling is something that perfectly normal, average people can do as a part of their perfeclty normal, average daily life?

Until we stop trying to present ourselves as fringe dwellers...

I agree with the rest of your post; however, as to the quoted section, a wise man once said:

- Home of nothing of interest to the tourists whatsoever, which is why I like it.


As to the agreement. I wear a suit every freaking day. I work in an office building, and people call me sir, which BTW still creeps me out. But when I'm on my bike, they call me something different, and it is nothing like "sir".

"They" call us "nutters" or whatever. And when they say it enough, "we" start to believe them. When "we" start to believe them, we can do one of two things 1) Reject their assessment, or 2) revel in it.

To each his own.

ObBike: I picked up an all aluminum bike for $30 on ebay, LOCALLY. Yeah, no shipping!

PS. When I showed up, and it was 15 degrees F, and the seller saw me ride it away, I'm sure she thought I was a nutter.

Love,
Larry

I'm sorry, I certainly don't see myself that way. Your above description is not far from what I am, but I also ride a bike. I don't try to portray myself as being 'different' or a 'nutter' or any of the plethora of terms that cyclists use to descibe themselves to separate them from the masses. I am part of those masses - just a regular person doing regular things. I ride a bike for certain trips because it is the most practical and efficient choice of transport, not as some sort of political statement, or some misguided rebellion against some perception of what constitutes the dominant culture. And I still get treated like sh*t on the road.

Until we stop trying to present ourselves as fringe dwellers, we will continue to be treated as such. How about spreading the idea that cycling is something that perfectly normal, average people can do as a part of their perfeclty normal, average daily life?

It wasn't my intention that I want to make it a political statement or self desribe bike users as nutters or fringe dwellers. My point was that others see it that way whether or not you intend it. To a road user who doesn't know you personally your a cyclist first, then an individual - like an uninvited fly at a barbecue.

What's mainstream, perfectly normal in the average daily life is not necessarily good. What's wrong with listening to vinyl? What's wrong with riding a bike? What's wrong with being jewish/muslim/hindu/pick your religion? What's wrong with being french/nepalese/mongolion/irish/pakastani ? What's wrong with eating brussel sprouts ?

It would be very dull place if everybody did and wanted to do the same things. And I think that's virtually what we have. A Western mono-culture of pop, big cars, suntans, sitcoms, chain stores and a fear mongering media/government.

I ride a bike because I like it, not because I want to change the world.

Hey Little Big Man
I was just poking a little fun at the American centredness of your point of view.
I agree with you, it is a right not a privilege.

I don't know what the answer is, except to keep riding.

I agree that there it's their problem, but it becomes my problem when those collective attitudes work together to restrict my freedoms.

Have any of your freedoms been restricted?

Riding a bike is about the same as dying your hair blue, you're a nutter.

Actually no it isn't. I've known people who have dyed their hair blue and all sorts of other wonderful colours in the past. Nobody shouted abuse at them in the street, nobody threw things at them.

What's mainstream, perfectly normal in the average daily life is not necessarily good. What's wrong with listening to vinyl? What's wrong with riding a bike? What's wrong with being jewish/muslim/hindu/pick your religion? What's wrong with being french/nepalese/mongolion/irish/pakastani ? What's wrong with eating brussel sprouts ?

Nothing. That's the problem. These are all perfectly normal everyday things. If they're seen as not normal it because of this monocultural attitude you talk about. The last thing I want is for everybody to like and do the same things - that's no way for a healthy society to function. Diversity is the key.

I don't expect everyone to take up cycling, but I don't think it's unreasonable for everyone to at least accept it as a normal everyday activity.

Actually no it isn't. I've known people who have dyed their hair blue and all sorts of other wonderful colours in the past. Nobody shouted abuse at them in the street, nobody threw things at them.

They probably look tougher than you :)

But you make a good point.

I agree with the rest of your post; however, as to the quoted section, a wise man once said:

- Home of nothing of interest to the tourists whatsoever, which is why I like it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The two quotes are entirely consistent in my mind.


"They" call us "nutters" or whatever. And when they say it enough, "we" start to believe them. When "we" start to believe them, we can do one of two things 1) Reject their assessment, or 2) revel in it.

To each his own.



How about 3)Question it. 'Why do you think it's crazy?' 'Do I look crazy to you?' 'Why is it any more crazy than sitting in a car in stopped traffic?' etc.

While you may be partially correct in that it is in some degree a role foisted upon us, I don't see many cyclists actively discouraging the idea, and in some cases actively encouraging it ('Devilmaycare cycling fool' <ahem> indeed). It becomes a feedback loop, and not in my estimation a very healthy one. It's better if the idea of the 'crazy cyclist' is put to rest, then those that don't see themselves as crazy may be more inclined to take it up.

How about 3)Question it. 'Why do you think it's crazy?' 'Do I look crazy to you?' 'Why is it any more crazy than sitting in a car in stopped traffic?' etc.

I and many others have tried this in the past. (and while we're talking about signature quotes, there's a reason I quoted the Manic Street Preachers)However, it's basically a pointless exercise. Even other cyclists called me crazy for riding around Tasmania recently, just as they call me crazy for riding to work everyday.

I try to explain these things to people (i.e. if I ride around Tasmania I might see a few things, if I ride to work I'll get there in a consistent time day to day and won't be spending ridiculous amounts of money on fuel etc etc), but most people would simply rather believe it's crazy and that's it. Heck, if other cyclists are calling me crazy, what hope does anybody else have? I firmly believe that people would believe the sky was green if it made them feel more comfortable - and that's the problem. Calling people who do something different "crazy" does seem to make people feel comfortable.

As a consequence, I just ignore it. If they want to call me crazy, so be it. As I said earlier, if they want to sit in traffic all day, if they want to be stressed out and see nothing on their holiday it's their problem - not mine.

Have any of your freedoms been restricted?
We already have laws allowing police to command you to ride on the adjacent sidepath, if there is one. In addition, while I was riding the road next to a path, a motorist yelled at me to "get on the path." These kinds of laws alter the public perception of our rightful place.

As a result of this law, I usually avoid riding adjacent to paths, so yes, my freedoms already have been restricted. But I would ask, should I wait until my freedoms are restricted before becoming concerned, or should I be proactive?

laws allowing police to command you to ride on the adjacent sidepath

This would only turn out badly, cop gets the finger, followed by a persuit, and my arrest.

We already have laws allowing police to command you to ride on the adjacent sidepath, if there is one. In addition, while I was riding the road next to a path, a motorist yelled at me to "get on the path." These kinds of laws alter the public perception of our rightful place.

As a result of this law, I usually avoid riding adjacent to paths, so yes, my freedoms already have been restricted. But I would ask, should I wait until my freedoms are restricted before becoming concerned, or should I be proactive?
ANd I would soon become a member of Critical Mass. Won't let my rights be infringed. OF course, I would be one of the more mild mannerd one, but one none the less.

We already have laws allowing police to command you to ride on the adjacent sidepath, if there is one.

I think that applies to everyone. Only this morning I saw construction workers directing all traffic onto a detour on Gilson Road. I suppose there is the question of whether that is applied equally to all traffic in all situations, and I expect you would find some bias there. Having said that, I've never been ordered off any road by a police officer in well over 100,000km of riding.


In addition, while I was riding the road next to a path, a motorist yelled at me to "get on the path." These kinds of laws alter the public perception of our rightful place.

But again the question must be asked, is this actually a result of the law, or is the motorist just a bigoted moron? I remember a similar case in Murwillumbah last year, a jerk driver told me to get on the footpath. Just one problem - Murwillumbah is in New South Wales, where footpath cycling is banned! Effectively this motorist was asking me to break the law. His command was not a result of the law, just a result of his own ignorance.

And you still have the freedom to treat such individuals with the contempt they deserve.



As a result of this law, I usually avoid riding adjacent to paths, so yes, my freedoms already have been restricted.

Again, that is your choice. Personally I ride wherever the hell it suits me to ride. Of course, some jerks in cars don't like it, but that's their problem. It is not going to stop me from riding. A while ago I posted a thread about how much more abuse I get if I happen to wear red when I'm riding. I'm not going to let that stop me either, I happen to like that colour. Verbal abuse only becomes a restriction on your freedoms if you allow it to.


But I would ask, should I wait until my freedoms are restricted before becoming concerned, or should I be proactive?

That is a fair comment, but this is an area where cold, calculated action is required, and where highly emotion charged knee-jerk reactions are not. Given that we live in a political system that is basically mob rule, we need to increase the size of our mob, and we have a better chance of doing this if we take heed of what I mentioned in my first post in this thread - and start selling the idea of transportational cycling.

Given that we live in a political system that is basically mob rule, we need to increase the size of our mob, and we have a better chance of doing this if we take heed of what I mentioned in my first post in this thread - and start selling the idea of transportational cycling.
You don't have to sell it to me! :)

Well, a large part of it is the fact that the automobile is for the vast majority of people in the USA, the primary means of transport.

Most people receive a bicycle as children. They rode it around the neighborhood and never got on it again when the got a car. Bicycles are naturally viewed as toys or at best a tool to help one transition to a real means of transport..... the automobile or now the SUV.

It also does not help that a large percentage of cyclists that motorists see ride like complete idiots. These people use the bicycle to convert themselves into very fast pedestrians and I see people like this riding on the wrong side of the road, darting in and out, "jaywalking" and riding at high speed on sidewalks. I think the more sensible drivers view these people with alarm because they are so very unpredictable that one has to worry that if you get anywhere near them, they might dart in front of you and you will hit and injure them. Seriously injuring someone with a vehicle has to be a very unpleasant experience.

The average motorist sees a cyclist up ahead and he is going faster and he views the cyclist as an impediment. They are not aware that cyclists have very low accident rates and can operate in traffic safely. They just do not even see cycling on the roads as a viable alternative. Anyone doing this has to be "crazy".

America has always had a love affair with the car. And when it first started, gas was plentiful, and cheap. For most adults, some of their fondest childhood memories are riding a bicycle. But when they became a teenager, getting a drivers license became the next big thing. Once they got that, and the keys to the car, most never looked back. The bicycle is percieved by the general public as a toy. The people who don't ride bicycles wouldnt know the difference between a $99.00 Wal-Mart special, and a $4,000.00 Moots. Most of these same people can't even believe a starter bike costs $300.00-$400.00 at your local bike shop, and the price goes up from there.

Today, the cost of living has gone up so much, that the single income family is a thing of the past, just like cheap gas. The general automotive public has to make a car payment, pay for insurance, gas, and repairs. They think if they have to do it, everyone should have to. When they see a cyclist, getting around without spending a penny on gas, they don't like it.

Also, owning and driving a car is a status symbol. In the midwest, if you bicycle for your transportation, others think you either lost your license, or you're poor and can't afford a car. So most people won't try any alternative means of transportation. Public transportation has the same stigma. If you ride public transportation, it's thought you've lost your license, or you're to poor to own a car.

bah! just get some bright xenon strobes and an air horn... and lobby lobby lobbby!!