View Full Version : Many Bikers seem rude and clueless.
I'm a biker myself and I'm sorry but I have to say this and I don't want to flame, but I have to say it anyway.
Many bikers are seem so rude and thoughtless. They ride in the middle of the road holding up traffic with their expensive bikes going 20 MPH in a 30 or 40 zone. Some ride in clubs like gangs blocking the road for cars. They don't pull over in single file. They just keep on going. It may be legal but its also stupid.
Is there an answer to this problem on our highways???
Personally, I don't so this. I pull over to allow cars to go by and I even stop to give them the right of way. I know I can't go as fast as a car and I certainly won't win out in a contest. I believe that roads were built first for cars and trucks, then for other things.
please opine.
www.southernblades.com
DanFromDetroit
02-02-04, 11:35 AM
Are you looking for a career change ? I hear Clear Channel Communications is looking for a few good DJs. You look like you show some promise :)
Dan
Don't know where you're from widmn, but out here in the Golden State, cyclists have a right to be on any public road (with the exception of specified, controlled access freeways). And any vehicle overtaking another has the duty to do so safely.
And then there's the old canard that the roads were built for cars. In fact, the American road system was modernized in response to lobbying by cyclists. Do a search; it's been discussed many times.
In my mind, It doesn't matter what you think your rights are. If you p$%^s enough people off by arrogant rude behavior, your "rights" may be taken away. I believe there may be answers to this issue, but it is clearly an issue because I see other comments for other threads indicating it is a nationwide problem and we will never solve the issue if we just insist that we have the right to be A$3$%^^holes and keep on behaving like we own the road. We do not own the roads and if we are lucky, we may be privileged to keep on sharing them with our bigger larger brothers.
ChezJfrey
02-02-04, 12:23 PM
Are you looking for a career change ? I hear Clear Channel Communications is looking for a few good DJs. You look like you show some promise :)
Dan
Too funny! Now, I'm off troll hunting. . . Anyone seen one?
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 12:28 PM
I'm a biker myself and I'm sorry but I have to say this and I don't want to flame, but I have to say it anyway.
Many bikers are seem so rude and thoughtless. They ride in the middle of the road holding up traffic with their expensive bikes going 20 MPH in a 30 or 40 zone. Some ride in clubs like gangs blocking the road for cars. They don't pull over in single file. They just keep on going. It may be legal but its also stupid.
Is there an answer to this problem on our highways???
Personally, I don't so this. I pull over to allow cars to go by and I even stop to give them the right of way. I know I can't go as fast as a car and I certainly won't win out in a contest. I believe that roads were built first for cars and trucks, then for other things.
please opine.
www.southernblades.com
Actually on these discussion boards there are two RELATED, but not identical topics being discussed, and darned if I don't mix them up alot myself.
One is the issue of legal standing of bikes on the roadway and as many folks have made clear, the laws say that Bikes are entitled to their fair share of roadway along with any other vehicle.
The other issue is just roadway courtesy. Always an endangered species, i think it died a painful death over the last two decades. My attitude as a cyclist on the road has always been to feel i would be better off if the cars coming up behind me got past me as quickly and safely as possible. With my rear view mirror I find that 95% of the cars pull over far to the left almost as soon as I come into their view. The next four percent pull over and honk thankfully when I let them know they are behind me and wave them along.
Of that deadly 1% who don't or can't move over: I always have been a defensive rider. (I have been in exactly two collisions with a car on my bike: both were my fault! eek!) The situation I watch out for is the case where the rider, a passing car, and an oncoming car are all gonna come together at the same time on a two lane road. No one has anywhere to go! I try to avoid this by being proactive: sometimes I speed up, other times I slow down, so that all 3 vehicles don't come together. If its unavoidable sometimes I 'll just stop riding and let everything pass.
Most folks I talk to are riding in densely populated urban areas; short commutes to work or other rides. This isn't part of my market. For short distances (say, less than 3 miles) I almost always walk. For longer distances, I take a car. I use my bike for 30-40 mile training rides or long summer tours. Pardon my modesty, but I have never seen my bike as anything more than a secondary vehicle on the road. All the features which make it feasible for cars to ride swiftly on a fairly crowded road--turn signals and brake lights are the ones I usually talk about--either don't exist on bicycles or require you to remove your hands from the steering/braking mechanisms at the very moment you need them the most.
The goodwill generated by cyclists in the 1970s crossing the country as part of our bicentennial celebration has long been obliterated by sidewalk riding dirt bikers or delivery boys slamming down pedestrians in crosswalks. Cyclists are just going to have to earn it back, on person at a time.
Your point about single file is well taken. Similarly riders should be a safe distance apart...but my goodness your Lance Armstrong wannabees never thought of 'drafting' as tailgating.
roughstuff
There is enough room for both, just get allong. Sometimes I'm in a car's way, sometimes cars are in my way, but usually cars are in other car's way and I am long gone.
Roughstuff, My point exactly. You are a defensive good rider IMHO. A secondary vehicle who realizes that bikes are more manueverable and can stop quicker than cars. You are not who I am talking about. Its the 25 club guys Lance A.'s all in formation going 15 or 20mph who block traffic forever who are the problem for all bikers.
Its the 25 club guys Lance A.'s all in formation going 15 or 20mph who block traffic forever who are the problem for all bikers.
I almost took some of these people out once, curvy mountain roads, clots of riders going over the center line, no warning there would be riders, dangerous situation. Darwin award winners? I hope you are refering to extream situations like this.
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 12:48 PM
In my mind, It doesn't matter what you think your rights are. If you p$%^s enough people off by arrogant rude behavior, your "rights" may be taken away. I believe there may be answers to this issue, but it is clearly an issue because I see other comments for other threads indicating it is a nationwide problem and we will never solve the issue if we just insist that we have the right to be A$3$%^^holes and keep on behaving like we own the road. We do not own the roads and if we are lucky, we may be privileged to keep on sharing them with our bigger larger brothers.
On my website I make it clear that trucks can, do and should 'own the roads.' Most truckers are far more courteous than the average automobile driver; they have a good view of the road because they are so much higher in their cabs, and they are hauling goods and services most of us want; not a bunch on snifflin' little urchins to a local mall. :p Long before drivers turned cell phones into just another distraction, truckers used their CBs to call in accidents, disabled vehicles, hazardous road conditions, and what have you.
roughstuff
ChezJfrey
02-02-04, 01:08 PM
Personally, I'll hold up as many autos as I please if the road warrants it. If I can stand getting to my destination at a speed of 18-20mph, so can everyone else - they'll just have to wait. Everyone behind me should have left earlier, or taken a different route.
See, these sentiments can go both ways. Your trip is no more, and no less important than anyone else's; even the person on a bicycle. Just because you're a wimp and must be protected against the weather in your car, doesn't make your transportation any more important or necessary than the cyclists. They don't (and shouldn't) have to cede the road to every damn vehicle they come across during their trip.
Why should the cyclist have to pull over and stop? Why not the cars? They can wait until the bicycle is gone, then proceed without the bother. Both of these vehicles are typically lugging (on average) one person to a destination that is only important to that individual. Neither of these individual's needs/desires warrant special consideration.
So, if you're in the car, waiting impatiently. . . get over it - you're not that special.
So, if you're in the car, waiting impatiently. . . get over it - you're not that special.
Can I get that on the back of a jersey? :)
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 01:45 PM
Personally, I'll hold up as many autos as I please if the road warrants it. If I can stand getting to my destination at a speed of 18-20mph, so can everyone else - they'll just have to wait. Everyone behind me should have left earlier, or taken a different route....
Wow...talk about unilateralism! Hold up those schoolbuses, ambulances, fresh/frozen food delivery vehicles, soccer moms off to pick up their kids, and most of all Ted Kennedy with his latest flame! Why don't we just make the national speed limit 18-20 mph and bicycles will have no problems under any circumstances? I doubt it.
roughstuff
"Why should the cyclist have to pull over and stop? Why not the cars? They can wait until the bicycle is gone, then proceed without the bother. Both of these vehicles are typically lugging (on average) one person to a destination that is only important to that individual. Neither of these individual's needs/desires warrant special consideration.
So, if you're in the car, waiting impatiently. . . get over it - you're not that special."
For the same reason they don't allow people to drive 40 MPH on the freeway. Most courtious slow moving trucks/drivers also pull off the road to allow faster moving traffic to pass. It should be no different with cycles. You are one of those people who obviously think that "you're more special" (read arrogant) than all of the motorists. You and your anger are part of the problem. Instead of trying to come up with solutions, you just say "screw em." Respectfully, You may also want to check into an anger management class.
Brillig
02-02-04, 01:56 PM
They ride in the middle of the road holding up traffic with their expensive bikes going 20 MPH in a 30 or 40 zone. [/url]
I sometimes ride in the middle of the road, but on a cheaper bike, so is that okay? ;)
There are no rules for this, it varies by situation. When I am on tight windy roads (with no shoulders) appraoching a blind curve I will be in the middle of the lane to prevent those motorists who don't quite understand how to drive from trying to pass me at this point. The alternative is sticking to the side and putting my life in danger that a car will come in opposing traffic and the motorist will take me out in an effort to avoid a head-on collision. The sad truth is that many motorists don't think about this so it's our job to think for them.
I'm also into the lane as I need to be to avoid being doored if there are cars parked.
But I have NEVER held up traffic. Cars sometimes must wait five seconds for a break in opposing traffic before passing but that's the extent of it. If you are riding on roads that are busy enough that traffic is actually building up behind you then I agree you should move over and let them by or better yet, find a new route.
When I lived in Chicago I almost always rode in the middle of the lane or in the middle of the street, but that's because traffic moves so slow there and there were so many damn cars in the way. Most of the time you can forget the bike lane, its full of cars and I almost got run over by busses, twice.
I sometimes ride in the middle of the road, but on a cheaper bike, so is that okay? ;)
There are no rules for this, it varies by situation. When I am on tight windy roads (with no shoulders) appraoching a blind curve I will be in the middle of the lane to prevent those motorists who don't quite understand how to drive from trying to pass me at this point. The alternative is sticking to the side and putting my life in danger that a car will come in opposing traffic and the motorist will take me out in an effort to avoid a head-on collision. The sad truth is that many motorists don't think about this so it's our job to think for them.
I'm also into the lane as I need to be to avoid being doored if there are cars parked.
But I have NEVER held up traffic. Cars sometimes must wait five seconds for a break in opposing traffic before passing but that's the extent of it. If you are riding on roads that are busy enough that traffic is actually building up behind you then I agree you should move over and let them by or better yet, find a new route.
Yes, on a cheaper bike that's OK. Bwahahaaaaaa.
Wow...talk about unilateralism! Hold up those schoolbuses, ambulances, fresh/frozen food delivery vehicles, soccer moms off to pick up their kids, and most of all Ted Kennedy with his latest flame!
roughstuff
Wow, now that you put it that way, I guess I'm wrong. I had no idea I was crippling the national economy and exacerbating the education crisis. And here I thought I was just trying to get to work on time. So naive I've been!
Please. I ride on the road, which my sales tax dollars have helped construct, and I obey the California Vehicle Code. I expect the drivers behind to obey the Vehicle Code too. I ride on the right, in a bike lane if provided or "as close to the curb as practicable." But I interpret "as close as practicable" liberally as necessary to ensure my safety. Not to ensure the convenience of drivers.
I consider it assertiveness. If you or a following motorist considers it arrogance, so be it.
What it boils down to is this:
The law says you should be a defensive driver. Courtesy, not road rage. Priviledge not a right. Cyclists have the same rights as motorists on the road.
If a group of cyclists slows down a car for 30 seconds, all hell breaks loose and it's target practice on cyclists.
If it was a Mack truck slowing you down, would you be advocating "rude Mack truck drivers" get off the road?
The problem is the motorist's mentality that is so prevalant and accepted in society: Unability to cope with changing situations, rage and the idea you are not to be inconvienced- and if you are, violence is justified.
The problem isn't bikers.
Or do you find those silly crosswalks a major pain in the butt too?
ChezJfrey
02-02-04, 03:59 PM
RacerX, my post was a bit of sarcasm to illustrate exactly what you point out - imposing a slight inconvenience is tantamount to provoking hostility. I merely tried to show the all-too-common, one-way thinking that occurs when a typical driver encounters a bike: All bikes must yield to a car because, "My time is more important." It's just as valid to reverse this to, "All cars must yield to bikes, because their time is unimportant to me, the cyclist." Both views are eqally valid based on the flawed logic.
I don't purposely delay traffic, but if the conditions warrant me taking a traffic lane, I do so. And I will remove myself from it, out of courtesy, when I am able. Until then, cars behind will just have to wait until they are able to move beyond. We are all (legal users of the road) entitled to, and subjected to this.
Gee, sometimes you have to wait. . . you'd think the traffic jams would condition a driver to expect delays as a matter of course.
Edit to add: And Oregon just passed a law that requires autos to wait until a pedestrian is across ALL lanes of traffic at controlled stops before continuing across the crosswalk (even right turns must wait until the ped steps foot on the sidewalk at the other side). How impatient are people going to get while wating for someone to cross the entirety of a 4-lane, with center turn highway, before making their right turn? I'm thinking everybody will curse this law because it slows them down and nobody will abide by it. . . or as we've already experienced in January, someone will jump into impatiently into the bike lane to swerve around cars stopped at the crosswalk and "accidentally" run the pedestrians down, killing them. Those "pesky" crosswalks should be done away with. . .
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 04:15 PM
Wow, now that you put it that way, I guess I'm wrong. I had no idea I was crippling the national economy and exacerbating the education crisis. And here I thought I was just trying to get to work on time. So naive I've been!
Please. I ride on the road, which my sales tax dollars have helped construct, and I obey the California Vehicle Code. I expect the drivers behind to obey the Vehicle Code too. I ride on the right, in a bike lane if provided or "as close to the curb as practicable." But I interpret "as close as practicable" liberally as necessary to ensure my safety. Not to ensure the convenience of drivers.
I consider it assertiveness. If you or a following motorist considers it arrogance, so be it.
:D There ya go, Caloso! Not only are ya crippling the economy, causing the national debt to soar, but because ya held up all that traffic ya caused global warming too. I'll bet a cyclist got in the way of the martian lander! Meebeep!
You keep falling back on the law, and I keep falling back on courtesy. Since I am riding a vehicle which provides so much less information to riders behind me (Again..turn signals and brake lights, among other things), it is a fantasy to suggest that I should be in the main line of traffic at any thing short of dire need. Furthermore , because I have fewer blind spots and better hearing about what is going on on the roadway, it is easier for me to be courteous and act on that courtesy than it is for someone boxed in a vehicle. Finally, in the event that an accident (please..an accident, ok? Not a 'crash' like the NTSA calls them) occurs, it is my ass that is gonna suffer the most (motorcyclists have the same risk); that, in and alone in itself, is enough to make me the rider who is intelligent enough to give way when push comes to shove and way must be given.
roughstuff
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 04:29 PM
What it boils down to is this:
......
If it was a Mack truck slowing you down, would you be advocating "rude Mack truck drivers" get off the road?
Well I know many many many locations where heavy commercial vehicles are excluded from the roadway for exactly that reason. In many other areas they are prohibited from the extreme left lane. And I might add that what vehicle cuts in and out of traffic, spews unburned fossil fuel, and pulls into bicycle lanes to drop passengers off at the curb, more than a BUS does? Yet busses give cycling organizations the vapors because it taunts them with their fantasy of urban mass transit.
Or do you find those silly crosswalks a major pain in the butt too?
I don't know. Ask the cyclist-urban delivery boys who decided that crosswalks and pedestrians were fair game.
roughstuff
Are you implying that my mere presence on the road and the safe, lawful operation of my vehicle is a discourtesy to drivers?
I don't buy that.
Drivers have plenty of opportunity to display some courtesy by staying off my wheel, by not throwing or yelling things at me, by overtaking me in a safe and efficient manner. Your idea that good manners requires me to make up for their vehicles' shortcomings? Ridiculous.
Here's how I'm courteous to drivers: my vehicle takes up a 20th as much road as theirs; I'm keeping gasoline prices down by lessening demand; I'm not putting any pollution into the sky (in fact, I'm cleaning up a tiny bit of it by passing it through my lungs); and I'm not taking up a parking spot.
Such a deal! All they have to do in return is not run me down or right hook me.
Well I know many many many locations where heavy commercial vehicles are excluded from the roadway for exactly that reason. In many other areas they are prohibited from the extreme left lane. And I might add that what vehicle cuts in and out of traffic, spews unburned fossil fuel, and pulls into bicycle lanes to drop passengers off at the curb, more than a BUS does? Yet busses give cycling organizations the vapors because it taunts them with their fantasy of urban mass transit.
I don't know. Ask the cyclist-urban delivery boys who decided that crosswalks and pedestrians were fair game.
roughstuff
Yeah that's a great attitude. Hope that works out for you.
fantasy of urban mass transit.
I'm not sure what you'er getting at, but urban mass transit is not a fantasy, and I love it. The busses I mentioned earlier were of the school variety.
The road rules here state that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast but MUST not impede traffic. So if a car is being blocked from passing a cyclist must move into single file to allow them to pass.
CHEERS.
Mark
Actually, I think most of us agree on this issue. We take as much, but only as much, road as we need for our own safety. We courteously and defensively take the right-of-way when it is legally ours, just as we yield it to others when it is not.
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 07:54 PM
Are you implying that my mere presence on the road and the safe, lawful operation of my vehicle is a discourtesy to drivers?
I don't buy that.
Drivers have plenty of opportunity to display some courtesy by staying off my wheel, by not throwing or yelling things at me, by overtaking me in a safe and efficient manner. Your idea that good manners requires me to make up for their vehicles' shortcomings? Ridiculous.
Here's how I'm courteous to drivers: my vehicle takes up a 20th as much road as theirs; I'm keeping gasoline prices down by lessening demand; I'm not putting any pollution into the sky (in fact, I'm cleaning up a tiny bit of it by passing it through my lungs); and I'm not taking up a parking spot.
Such a deal! All they have to do in return is not run me down or right hook me.
Nope...not what I am implying at all, so the rest of your post is a straw man of self pity and roadside fantasy.
roughstuff
ooo, got your money's worth from your quote of the month calendar.
Can't wait to hear what you have next month
:rolleyes:
DnvrFox
02-02-04, 08:08 PM
A secondary vehicle who realizes that bikes . . . can stop quicker than cars.
Oh really? These bicycle experts might disagree with you.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bicycle+stopping+distance+car+group:rec.bicycles.misc&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.bicycles.misc&selm=19980302224600.RAA12782%40ladder02.news.aol.com&rnum=9
This will get very technical very quickly, but it's the only
way to debunk the stopping ability fallacy.
Here's a quick summary for those who don't want to
get technical:
Given the same road surface and the same tire rubber,
theoretically, all vehicles can stop in virtually identical
distances and times. In practice, unless the vehicle can
approach the skid-point and not skid, braking distances
will be dramatically worse than the theoretical best.. Cars equipped with
anti-lock brakes can approach the theoretical
best: bikes and motorcycles never will be able to match that.
In order for a bike to equal the anti-lock car, the rider must
be able to do, but just avoid doing, a skidding front-wheel
stand.
Mark Hickey wrote:
>Brad Fry <bafst19@pop.pitt.edu> wrote:
>>Cyclists can stop much faster than a car
Mark Hickey responded:
>I agree with everything but the "stop faster than a car" part. True,
>if the car is going twice as fast, it's going to take a longer
>distance to stop it - but don't make the mistake of assuming you'll
>really be able to stop faster than that car you're drafting.
>
>It all comes down to physics, and the car has a big advantage in the
>amount of traction per pound (via much lower pressure tires). To put
>it another way, if you're riding tires with 120psi, and the car has
>tires with 30psi, he's got 4x the rubber on the road for every pound
>of weight. Plus, the bike has a big disadvantage in center of
>gravity (which seriously limits the bike's ultimate stopping power to
>far less than can be supplied by the brakes an/or tires).
Tech Talk:
Motorcycle and bicycle braking superiority is a
common and fatal fallacy. Mark is correct that bikes
do not have an advantage but his reasons why are
incorrect. Braking potential is exclusively related
to the road surface and the tire surface, described
by the static coefficient of friction.
The pertinent formula is tough to write in a text
message, but here goes:
Fh = MsFp
where:
Fh: Force horizontal (braking force)
Ms :Mu (the greek letter) static
(static coefficient of friction)
Fp: Force perpindicular (vehicle weight)
At first glance one might think that the heavier
vehicle would stop faster, but the braking force
is translated into braking acceleration by:
Ab=Fh/M
where:
Ab: Braking acceleration (how fast you slow down)
Fh: Braking force (horizontal force from 1s formula)
M: Mass of the body (in this case the vehicle)
The mass of the vehicle can be translated into
the weight of the vehicle easily, and putting the
2 formulas together, the Fh (weight) cancels out,
leaving Ab=AgMs
Ag:Acceleration due to gravity (32 feet/secsec)
The weight has nothing to do with it, and since gravity is
gravity, the rubber in the tire does it all.
This is fine and dandy. You now know the potential
braking acceleration under ideal conditions with
an ideal brake system.
One other theoretical note:
The friction coefficient comes in two forms: static and
kinetic, with the kinetic lower than the static. Static is
used when the two surfaces are not moving in relation
to each other (ie non-skidding tire or your shoes on the
ground). Kinetic is used when one surface is sliding
against the other (ie skidding tires, or sliding shoes).
This means that the maximum force is achieved when
you are just about to break your tires loose, but not
quite doing so (almost skidding). Walk on ice- as long
as you don't slide your feet, you have some friction,
once your foot starts sliding, it's much easier to slide.
Waxed cross country skis function because of this.
Here's reality:
Ideal braking is achieved by bringing all tires that are in
contact with the road to the brink of skidding and staying
at that brink until you are stopped. It really can't be done
reliably in practice, that's why you should pump your
brakes in the snow. Anti-lock brakes do the pumping
for you hundreds of times a second so cars with these
brakes should be able to stop faster than any other vehicle.
Reality intrudes once again and says that it ain't
necessarily so- good drivers may be able to stop
a non-anti-lock car faster due to touch and experience.
Cars can safely skid all four tires, which allows them
to experience near-ideal braking.
Bikes cannot reliably or safely skid both their front and
rear wheels simultaneously, so they cannot ride that
fine line of maximum braking, meaning that they can't
achieve maximum braking.
A note on rubber: in general, the softer the
rubber compound, the better the grip, or coefficient of
friction. This comes at a price however: softer rubber
tends to wear faster.
So. The moral of the story is: Your bike will most likely
take longer to stop than a car in an emergency.
Chris L
02-02-04, 08:13 PM
A couple of points here. Firstly, has anyone in a car actually measured the length of time they are actually "held up" by a cyclist? It's seldom (if ever) more than about three seconds. They'll lose longer than that at the next set of traffic lights. They'll also lose longer than that by slowing down to shout abuse and direct any kind of road rage at the cyclist. If people are in such a hurry, surely the more sensible option is to just wait the three seconds, and then simply get on with driving wherever it is they need to go.
Secondly, why do those preaching "courtesy" only seem to focus on whatever aspects of courtesy suit them? Fact is, people at the supermarket "hold me up" all the time by simply taking longer to go through the checkout than I would. If I'm supposed to move over for them on the road, why can't they move over in the supermarket queue? Could it be because there is a far more fundamental issue of courtesy at stake here? Could it be that simply waiting for your turn is also part of courtesy?
So perhaps someone can tell me why the courtesy that applies in all other facets of life does not apply on the roads.
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 08:15 PM
Yeah that's a great attitude. Hope that works out for you.
Duchy above kind of makes my point. I'll bet you and I are not all THAT far apart in how we approach riding; on a discussion board like this the participants tend to seek out differences. I have no doubt that I am a more conservative/conciliatory rider than most: I walk thru most busy intersections. Like wars, accidents are best prevented and the legal remedies are pretty thin gruel when all is said and done. "He had the right of way! makes for a pretty sad line on my tombstone.
roughstuff
I can tell you when I ride with my gf, if there's room, we always ride 2 abreast since it:
a) Makes for good conversation,
b) Makes us a lot more visible,
c) Keeps cars from passing us for those 3 extra seconds until we meet up at the red light again.
However, we both have mirrors and if we see that the road is empty, one of us will hang back a little and let the other car swing around.
If the road has some traffic, we'll ride single file until the car passes.
If there's a lot of traffic, we'll either ride single file all the time or it's a free for all in heavy traffic as we weave between the cars.
On a major avenue where traffic is doing 40-50mph it's just common sense that I try to stay as far to the right as possible while still distant enough to avoid a good dooring. I mean I don't care who you are,
Imagine a bike path just wide enough for 2 and there's some guy in his Toys R' US bike going 10mph weaving around in the middle of the path with a huge basket of beets. Meanwhile, you've got on your bling bling, your bike's a Trek 5900; You'd want the guy to give you a little room too.
Or joggers... or pedestrians...
Reminds me of a friend of mine who road onto an onramp to a major highway by accident. He made sure to stay to the far right and got off at the closest off ramp. Share the road.
Roughstuff
02-02-04, 08:39 PM
......
Secondly, why do those preaching "courtesy" only seem to focus on whatever aspects of courtesy suit them? Fact is, people at the supermarket "hold me up" all the time by simply taking longer to go through the checkout than I would. If I'm supposed to move over for them on the road, why can't they move over in the supermarket queue? Could it be because there is a far more fundamental issue of courtesy at stake here? Could it be that simply waiting for your turn is also part of courtesy?
So perhaps someone can tell me why the courtesy that applies in all other facets of life does not apply on the roads.
HMMM!! thats it! On the road we need signs that say Express lane, two wheels or less!
On a serious note Chris, the answer to your (underlined) question is simple. Courtesy is not something you expect. It is something you appreciate
when it is offered to you. If I have three carts full of groceries and you have only a bottle of cough syrup, it certainly would be courteous of me to allow you to pass thru, and I have done that many times. But it is rather pathetic of you to expect it; and in fact if I get the impression you think I owe you a pass, I may just start saying I forgot some items and send the bag boy for them while you stew in your own deserved juice.
It is exactly the same on the road. I don't expect anything. I drive my car accordingly and ride my bike accordingly.
Similarly, if you are courteous toward others it sure is nice to be thanked for it. But are you expecting a gesture in return? That isn't courtesy...that's groveling for psychic brownie points like the Vatican used to dish out in the middle ages! ...
Some people pay a complement as if they expected a receipt!
roughstuff
Chris L
02-02-04, 08:53 PM
HMMM!! thats it! On the road we need signs that say Express lane, two wheels or less!
I thought that's what freeways/motorways were for.
On a serious note Chris, the answer to your (underlined) question is simple. Courtesy is not something you expect. It is something you appreciate
when it is offered to you. If I have three carts full of groceries and you have only a bottle of cough syrup, it certainly woukld be courteous of me to allow you to pass thru, and I have done that many times. But it is rather pathetic of you to expect it; and in fact if I get the impression you think I owe you a pass, I may just start saying I forgot some items and sent the bag boy for them while you stew own deserved juice. <p>
It is exactly the same on the road. I don't expect anything. I drive my car accordingly and ride my bike accordingly.
Strange, because the tone of your responses (and indeed the tone of the original question) seems to indicate that this expectation is in existence. And the behaviour of many motorists I see everyday (even though they are no faster than I am in traffic regardless), seems to indicate they have this expectation. I'm just waiting for someone to tell me why this seems a reasonable expectation in one facet of life but not another.
If I'm expected to move over for faster people on the road, is it so wrong for me to expect slower people to move over for me in the supermarket? If I'm expected to wait my turn in the supermarket, why aren't they expected to wait their turn on the road? Why does courtesy seem to have two different meanings?
Similarly, if you are courteous toward others it sure is nice to be thanked for it. But are you expecting a gesture in return? That isn't courtesy...that's groveling for psychic brownie points like the Vatican used to dish out in the middle ages! ...
To be honest, I generally don't expect courtesy in return for any courtesy I hand out. Even if I did, it would hardly be a realistic expectation in this day and age. I'm quite prepared to extend a reasonable degree of courtesy, and I believe the laws pertaining to bicycles on roads in this country (ride as far left as practicable) legislate for that. However, I am not going to endanger myself by riding in a section of the road where it is neither safe or practical simply in the name of "courtesy". Those behind me (assuming they actually are any faster than I am), will just have to wait their turn for five seconds.
Will I get anything in return, probably not, but that doesn't really bother me to be honest.
Honestly is this that big of an issue? I am either mixing it up with congested traffic, where I am usually the fastest vehicle and I do ride very aggresively, not recklessly. Or I am being blown by on the shoulder, or the stripe or whatever, I have never been hit (nor have I ever been in a car accident, and I drive the way I bike). Lets not forget that biking mile for mile is safer than driving (Bicycling; recent issue). Share the road, get along, give and take, compromise that is what a successful life is made of, so choke on it!!!!!!!
Veganese
02-02-04, 10:50 PM
It smells a bit like troll in here...
Roughstuff
02-03-04, 08:18 AM
I thought that's what freeways/motorways were for.
Well yes it is. But on many such roads there are still lane restrictions for heavy commercial vehicles. And don't forget ya have to get off the motorway eventually to deliver the goods; so these vehicles are still on one lane and two lane local roads.
The rest of your points are quite valid.
roughstuff
Bobatin
02-03-04, 09:33 AM
Trolling? Yes, there is nothing about cycling on his web site. And.........oh yeah.....what Chris said.
franklen
02-03-04, 09:47 AM
Trolling? Yes, there is nothing about cycling on his web site. And.........oh yeah.....what Chris said.
Though I know there was just a long thread somewhere on this site about carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) for biker protection. So southernblades fits right in don't it? :p
cyclezealot
02-03-04, 09:50 AM
Could not agree less. I frequently commute to work as is my right.Some people choose to not have cars or can't afford them...A bike could be a salvation to some lower paid workers, whose use of a bike allows them somewhat increased job opportunities.
Any way I say, our First Amendment rights should be interpreted to mean, we can travel under whatever means we choose. We pay taxes and should demand to have equal access to the roads.Never met a road bike that does not need asphalt.
As to rude, cyclists, for every one there is 100 much ruder motorists..Never seen such a maladjusted group of sucidal maniaciacs in my life. Sometimes, I think we cyclists are too passive in demanding our rights.No roads are not just built for people...
Don't know where you come from... Where I live cyclists are the most adjusted citizens I have met. That kind of exercise puts the world into perspective. Many of us think we are saving the planet...
Recommended reading..Forget who recommended the book
to me, "Home from Nowhere, " by James H. Kunstler. Excellant reading..About how our economy,culture, transportation is fouling our nest( where we live, in our cities.) A must read..Thanks, whoever recommended it..Just got it and into a couple chapters..
Puts into perspective,a part of the reason why motorists are
such jerks.
Ugh. It is smelling a bit trollish in here. But let me just respond to Roughstuff's post asserting that I'm, what was it again?, tilting at the strawman of roadside pity.
You keep falling back on the law, and I keep falling back on courtesy. Since I am riding a vehicle which provides so much less information to riders behind me (Again..turn signals and brake lights, among other things), it is a fantasy to suggest that I should be in the main line of traffic at any thing short of dire need. Furthermore , because I have fewer blind spots and better hearing about what is going on on the roadway, it is easier for me to be courteous and act on that courtesy than it is for someone boxed in a vehicle. (emphasis added)
I only read what you post. My apologies if I've misinferred from the statement above that you think a cyclist is discourteous for merely riding safely and legally.
I think that's enough.
Puts into perspective,a part of the reason why motorists are such jerks.
Their not jerks, their just spoiled brats (road rage=temper tantrum) that act like crybabies whenever they have to share.
Gus Riley
02-03-04, 10:51 AM
Along these lines of "right" to the road, I asked this question: My wifey and I are riding our tandem on a narrow curving road. A car comes up from behind with one little old man inside who begins honking as soon as he catches up with us. We're cruisin at 25 mph in a 30 mph area. Theres two of us and one of him using this patch of roadway...does he have more "rights" to the road than we do? As an added bit of info, we own 5 licensed vehicles (yes, cars, truck, motorcycle and a large motorcoach) so we definitly pay our "fair" share in taxes.
Or take this scenerio, I'm clippin along at 25 mph on my single in a 15 mph zone, and a car approaches from behind me. Now, I'm following the car in front of me, this idiot behind me pulls up on my left and wants me to move over so he can follow the guy I'm following...hmm, now where'd did this guy come up with this equasion? I just moved closer to his passenger side door and acted like he wasn't there. He moved back to where he belonged. Did he have more "right" to my place in the lane...I don't think so, and I don't think Johnny law would think so either (of course JL wouldn't have appreciated either of our speeds tho).
I'll pull off to the side if I'm holding up traffic, that's plain good road courtesy.
[perspective. Many of us think we are saving the planet...
Recommended reading..Forget who recommended the book
to me, "Home from Nowhere, " by James H. Kunstler. Excellant reading..About how our economy,culture, transportation is fouling our nest( where we live, in our cities.) A must read..Thanks, whoever recommended it..Just got it and into a couple chapters..
Puts into perspective,a part of the reason why motorists are
such jerks.[/QUOTE]
Obviously many of you are venting heavily at motorists. That's good, cuz it is the first step to recovery. Anger management class would be the logical 2nd step before it eats you up inside.
As to saving the wqrld, and reading tree hugger books, I read "Silent Spring" probably before you were born and went into the Biology/Ecology major mode, saving the world phase shortly thereafter in my 20s. More recently, I have discovered that Rachael Carlson, Author of Silent Spring, was wrong in her thesis and that the world doesn't really need saving after all. Furthermore, All the past 1973 answers to saving the world were wrong.
Now I am just trying to discover how to save myself and maybe help my fellow bikers in the process.
I totally reject the bravado,"I'll ride where I want to cuz the law says I can" arrogant and foolhardy attitude that many on this board are taking and will continue to look for commonsense answers to a real problem between motorists and bikers. Some here have obviously recognized the issue and have thought this through carefully and have worked out systems that appear safe to themselves. I only wish it were as clear to me.
Oh really? These bicycle experts might disagree with you.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bicycle+stopping+distance+car+group:rec.bicycles.misc&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.bicycles.misc&selm=19980302224600.RAA12782%40ladder02.news.aol.com&rnum=9
I didn't mean to get so technical; however, experience tells me that bikes can stop faster.
In theory, what you say is so true; however, reality(not theory) says that statistically bikes travel much slower (averaging 10 to 15 MPH versus cars 25 to 70 MPH ) and obviously weigh much less. Speed and weight trump all other factors; therefore, in reality (not in theory) bikes almost always stop in less distance.
Also would be interested in hearing possible solutions from other countries where bike vs car ratio is much higher....Asia and Italy perhaps?????
averaging 10 to 15 MPH
Speak for yourself
cyclezealot
02-03-04, 12:47 PM
[perspective. Many of us think we are saving the planet...
Recommended reading..Forget who recommended the book
to me, "Home from Nowhere, " by James H. Kunstler. Excellant reading..About how our economy,culture, transportation is fouling our nest( where we live, in our cities.) A must read..Thanks, whoever recommended it..Just got it and into a couple chapters..
Puts into perspective,a part of the reason why motorists are
such jerks.
Obviously many of you are venting heavily at motorists. That's good, cuz it is the first step to recovery. Anger management class would be the logical 2nd step before it eats you up inside.
As to saving the wqrld, and reading tree hugger books, I read "Silent Spring" probably before you were born and went into the Biology/Ecology major mode, saving the world phase shortly thereafter in my 20s. More recently, I have discovered that Rachael Carlson, Author of Silent Spring, was wrong in her thesis and that the world doesn't really need saving after all. Furthermore, All the past 1973 answers to saving the world were wrong.
Now I am just trying to discover how to save myself and maybe help my fellow bikers in the process.
I totally reject the bravado,"I'll ride where I want to cuz the law says I can" arrogant and foolhardy attitude that many on this board are taking and will continue to look for commonsense answers to a real problem between motorists and bikers. Some here have obviously recognized the issue and have thought this through carefully and have worked out systems that appear safe to themselves. I only wish it were as clear to me.[/QUOTE]
Simply put, I want to live where if I choose to not have a car and use whatever forms of transportation- that is my right.Forget all the other societal factors. You can belieieve what you want.....That is your choice.
This is not about ending manufacturing. I for one am upset about its demise of manufacturing jobs to cheap labor countries.
But what should affect all cyclists, the daily carnage I see from motorists in a state of rage..You don't see that, we must live in drastically different places. I do believe that urban over-crowding is the cause of road rage and building new roads will only make the problems worse.
As to the books' chief point...The demise of our cities and standard of living.. You don't see our large urban cores in a state of total decay and chaos , then we are using different prescriptions for our eye glasses.
Finally, Widmn..You don't see some signs that motorists/politicians will deny you of your right to ride/commute, on your bike, I say you have your head in the sand. Many in high places see bikes as toys,something you spend money on at Christmas time.Their use gets out of place, then our arrogrance needs be reigned in. I select to ride my bike to work and errands, that is what I have a right to do...Like Oregon, we should select to use our voice to make biking almost equal to cars, that is a political right...Last year I paid like $16,000 in income taxes and should I select to have my gasoline taxes used for alternative transportation,that is my right as a citizen.
And finally, I see no comparsion to "Silent Spring" and urban planning to make our cities more liveable.
DnvrFox
02-03-04, 01:02 PM
I didn't mean to get so technical; however, experience tells me that bikes can stop faster.
In theory, what you say is so true; however, reality(not theory) says that statistically bikes travel much slower (averaging 10 to 15 MPH versus cars 25 to 70 MPH ) and obviously weigh much less. Speed and weight trump all other factors; therefore, in reality (not in theory) bikes almost always stop in less distance.
Also would be interested in hearing possible solutions from other countries where bike vs car ratio is much higher....Asia and Italy perhaps?????
I shouldn't have bothered you with the facts?
You already know what is correct. Are you a physicist?
I guess I'm just a lousy communicator because it sounds like we are after the same thing but are just arguing.
I am looking for a solution to the problems between motorists and bikers.
I understand that motorists and bikers are both to blame, but I'm talking to the bikers on this forum.
I just don't believe that pushyness and arrogance on the road are the way to get a solution.
I don't believe that "in your face, its the law" is the way to gain ground.
I do believe that the answer has to lie with us because motorist just don't care.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.