Advocacy & Safety - Do you believe that cyclists should ride rudely?

I've noticed quite a few people accusing the Advocacy & Safety forum members of being summarily pro-bike, anti-car, to the point of always siding with bicyclists no matter how illegal or rude their behavior.

This is not my impression, so I wanted to do a poll and see what people think.

The two options are:

1) I think it is NOT OK for a cyclist to violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road.

2) I think it is OK for a cyclist to violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road.

I don't think you are going to get the stridently anti-car set to show their colors with this poll. I suspect you will get close to 100% of respondents choosing the first option. The problem is that people have varying ideas of what right-of-way means.

For example, If I'm at a red light and there's a car a hundred feet down on the cross street going 20 mph, I'll consider running the light. In my opinion, I'm not violating his right of way since I'm not in his way, but others would disagree with me.

I only do so when there is an immediate threat to my safety, and it has to be a pretty big threat, because violating someone's ROW generally puts the cyclist at some amount of risk.

Would you consider going through a deserted red light, after stopping and checking in all directions for motorists, violating someone's ROW? I do this occasionally, usually on my morning commute at ~5 AM.

I certainly don't believe cyclists should ride "rudely". But the riding style that I consider "confident and assertive with respect to my rights and duties as a vehicle" is often thought of as "rude" by motorists. (Meaning that they don't like me taking the lane or simply being on the road with them.) Personally, I couldn't possibly care less what motorists think of me, unless their feelings are exhibited in dangerous behavior towards myself.

I find that I get better results and feel better about myself if I try to ride friendly.

I don't think that's the right question. I guess filtering is technically violating other people's right of way, so I do sometimes do that at intersections where it makes sense to me. Otherwise, the idea of violating someone's right of way is as diametrically opposed to the way I operate any vehicle as you can get.

I've noticed quite a few people accusing the Advocacy & Safety forum members of being summarily pro-bike, anti-car, to the point of always siding with bicyclists no matter how illegal or rude their behavior.

This is not my impression, so I wanted to do a poll and see what people think.

The two options are:

1) I think it is NOT OK for a cyclist to violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road.

2) I think it is OK for a cyclist to violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road.

I think it is NOT OK for a cyclist to violate the ROW of other users of the road... but I also feel that it is NOT OK for others to violate a cyclists ROW. A cyclist moving at 20MPH on a road signed for 50MPH MAX is NOT violating any body's ROW... that first has to be understood. Speed limits are limits, not suggested driving speeds.

Second cyclists generally learn to be rude after being treated poorly by motorists... so "rude" is simply a reaction to day to day reality.

No one initially jumps on a bike with the intent to go out and aggravate motorists.

hells yes. either ride a bike or GTFO

Motorists often confuse annoyance and their own anger as a violation of their ROW.

Motorists often confuse annoyance and their own anger as a violation of their ROW.

Exactly... and then they tend to lash out at the first vulnerable thing...

Just the other day I was behind a city bus, that was moving slowly around a tight curve... the motorist behind me at the first opportunity to pass flipped the finger to me... not the bus. Go figure. :eek:

I don't think you are going to get the stridently anti-car set to show their colors with this poll. I suspect you will get close to 100% of respondents choosing the first option. The problem is that people have varying ideas of what right-of-way means.

For example, If I'm at a red light and there's a car a hundred feet down on the cross street going 20 mph, I'll consider running the light. In my opinion, I'm not violating his right of way since I'm not in his way, but others would disagree with me.
Now I know there is a lot of discussion about nuance when it comes to politeness, as well as the rules of ROW. But it is my impression that in general, almost all forum users disagree with riding in a way that forces other drivers to give up their ROW.

Yet, I often see posts decrying the scofflaw messenger-style bike rider (which I have yet to see much of outside of YouTube), and accusing the forum members here of advocating that kind of behavior.

On a side note, from a legal perspective, ROW issues can only exist when the intersecting of two paths would cause interference. Your example of running a red light cannot technically be said to be a ROW issue unless the driver must alter his behavior because of your crossing the issue.

Another example: A person has stopped (in bike or car, no matter) at a stop sign, and is now preparing to cross the intersection. Cross traffic has no stop sign, and therefore ROW, generally speaking. If the person crosses because the intersection appears completely clear, only to be hit by a second person that is traveling much faster than the speed limit (and so reaches the intersection much more quickly than the first person would have anticipated), the law normally sides with the the first person.

---


Would you consider going through a deserted red light, after stopping and checking in all directions for motorists, violating someone's ROW? I do this occasionally, usually on my morning commute at ~5 AM.
Would I personally do that? Absolutely. The goal of the law is the safety and equal convenience of all road users. I personally have zero issue with someone whose behavior is based on meeting these goals, even if it technically violates a law. If there are no other vehicles present, ROW cannot said to be broken.

I'll give you real-world example. At a small, lighted intersection, a bicyclist is waiting at the line to turn left (no separate turn lane, or protected green arrow when the light changes), with lots of cars waiting behind him. There is oncoming traffic waiting at the opposite side to go through. Cross traffic has a green light, but there is zero traffic for as far as the eye can see.

The law-abiding cyclist would wait for the green light, and then wait for a gap in the opposite traffic before turning left. In the meantime, the other drivers would be forced to wait behind him until that gap appeared, and the cyclist would be sitting for an extended period exposed at the intersection.

Following law here violates the spirit of the law in that it is less convenient and safe for all road users. The cyclist could easily and safely turn against the red light, and be out of danger, and out of the way of the other users.

Of course, many would vehemently disagree with me, and that's their prerogative.

---


A cyclist moving at 20MPH on a road signed for 50MPH MAX is NOT violating any body's ROW... that first has to be understood.
Absolutely.

I've noticed quite a few people accusing the Advocacy & Safety forum members of being summarily pro-bike, anti-car, to the point of always siding with bicyclists no matter how illegal or rude their behavior.

This is not my impression, so I wanted to do a poll and see what people think.

The two options are:

1) I think it is NOT OK for a cyclist to violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road.

2) I think it is OK for a cyclist to violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road.

ESPECIALLY since cyclists are a minority group on the road I think that ANY cyclist who would violate the Right-of-Way of other users of the road would be very bad for the image of all cyclists in general.

but I also feel that it is NOT OK for others to violate a cyclists ROW. A cyclist moving at 20MPH on a road signed for 50MPH MAX is NOT violating any body's ROW... that first has to be understood.

Sorry, you lost me there. If your peloton is taking up an entire lane of a 50mph road, you deserve what you get, (I hope it's only a ticket, and not run over by some hapless motorist who was obeying the law.)

While motorcycling a couple of months ago near my home, I came across a traffic jam on a 50mph two-lane road. There was a line of cars stuck behind this wannabe Giro D'Ipstick AND SOME OF THE RIDERS WERE EVEN SPILLING INTO THE SOLE REMAINING LANE. There was naturally plenty of honking and fingers exchanged but somehow I don't think any of the car drivers were convinced of the error of their ways.

I prefer a non-confrontational approach: I pulled my carbureted motorcycle directly in front of the peloton, fully engaged the choke on my motorcycle and rode slowly ahead of them for a mile or two. The resulting fumes smell bad, are highly carcinogenic, and IMO entirely deserved.

Being in a brightly-colored, hostile little mob doesn't excuse you from road courtesy. :)

Gene:

A cyclist

You:

peloton

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/2787/fail2it9.jpg

Sorry, you lost me there. If your peloton is taking up an entire lane of a 50mph road, you deserve what you get, (I hope it's only a ticket, and not run over by some hapless motorist who was obeying the law.)

Why? If one slow motorist was using the lane, they would be using just as much road and be just as legal. One cyclist has as much right as one motorist to use the road. Now typically if the road is multilaned, there is NO provision for pulling over to give way to any built up traffic.




While motorcycling a couple of months ago near my home, I came across a traffic jam on a 50mph two-lane road. There was a line of cars stuck behind this wannabe Giro D'Ipstick AND SOME OF THE RIDERS WERE EVEN SPILLING INTO THE SOLE REMAINING LANE. There was naturally plenty of honking and fingers exchanged but somehow I don't think any of the car drivers were convinced of the error of their ways.


OK they were rudely using more than one lane. And in doing so, may be violating laws.



I prefer a non-confrontational approach: I pulled my carbureted motorcycle directly in front of the peloton, fully engaged the choke on my motorcycle and rode slowly ahead of them for a mile or two. The resulting fumes smell bad, are highly carcinogenic, and IMO entirely deserved.


Oh, so abuse of cyclists and the air that others breath is "legal and morally correct"? And it is hardly non-confrontational... your local air resources board might be quite interested in your technique.



Being in a brightly-colored, hostile little mob doesn't excuse you from road courtesy. :)

Going slow is not a violation of most state laws... especially when there are more lanes available. Dressing in brightly colored clothing is not a violation of laws, and doing so to be noticed only makes good sense. Driving a brightly colored car gives one no more "rights" over the road either.

Well, there is some conflict between motorists and bicyclists. But the bicycle was around first. The League of American Bicyclists have been petitioning for wider roads since 1934.
We the bicyclists could be petitioning for lower speed limits, within the realm of the laws of physics pertinent to bicycles. But we choose to ask for wider roads, therefore we are helping the motorists, whether they realize it or not. Is this a conflict of interest? The fact is, most cyclists have cars.

I hate to block traffic. I always let cars and trucks pass me when I'm on my bicycle.

I have an Electric Bicycle, and I would like to see more electric bikes that can go faster that the mandated twenty miles per hour.

I also have built bikes with fairings. Aerodynamic improvements can help a bicycle go about forty seven MPH. At 47MPH, I just couldn't spin the pedals any faster, and I never got that BIG chainring I wanted.
But my fairing designs were compromised by crash-protection and cargo carrying factors, which increased the weight of the bike.

We are always helping the motorists. We have cars ourselves and would like to pass other cyclists safely when we drive. Instead of asking for lower speed limits, I went and built a faster bicycle.

I haven't seen any kamikaze motorists in a long time. I used to see them on a regular basis, except it always looked like the same two or three motorists... Always the cars would drift haplessly across the white fog line which defines the travel portion of the roadway.

Today, I ride with a rear-view mirror, always keeping a look-out.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

or before they do it to you...I always forget which way it goes.

The golden rule always sounded a bit naughty to me...

I doubt anyone on here will say they believe it is right to take the right of way, But we all know there are some out there who act that way. The disagreement I've seen in this forum doesn't seem to focus on whether that's wrong or not, but whether it's relevant to cyclists as a whole.

Some believe that the impact of these cyclists is minimal (to the point of irrelevant) in the 'big picture'.

Others believe these cyclists DO have an impact on the public perception of cyclists, and that this impact can and should be addressed along with the other problems we face.

I fall into the latter camp. I think the real difference in paradigms is focused on perception of motorists - Many cyclists seem to have fallen into a mentality of opposition, believing that motorists as a group are essentially "out to get them". I believe "cagers" are people too, just like us, and that the majority hold no ingrained malice toward cyclists - but that general opinion, driven mostly by misconception and lack of education, but contributed to by a few "bad apple" cyclists, leads them to honestly believe cyclists do not belong on the road.


I think we can all agree that the real key to the problem is changing that belief among motorists. Our opinions differ, though, about whether addressing lawlessness among some cyclists would help.

If there are no other vehicles present, ROW cannot said to be broken. That seems to fit in well with this definition of ROW (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right+of+way):


The term right of way...refers to a preference of one of two vehicles..., asserting the right of passage at the same place and time. It is not an absolute right, however, since the possessor of the right of way is not relieved from the duty of exercising due care for her own safety and that of others.


The law-abiding cyclist would wait for the green light, and then wait for a gap in the opposite traffic before turning left. In the meantime, the other drivers would be forced to wait behind him until that gap appeared... Rather than advocating law-breaking, controlled intersections can be replaced with designs that allow travelers to proceed whenever there's a big enough gap (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?essay_id=462572&fuseaction=wq.essay).

It's rude to ride rudely and it's not right to take the right of way.

And it's against the law to take the law into your own hands. - Barney Fife

You have to be a fool to violate another vehicles right of way on a bicycle, because if the other vehicle doesn't give the right of way to you, you could get hit and rule number one of bicycling is DON'T GET HIT.

First of all, what is the definition of violating someone's right of way? To me, yeilding the right of way is making sure that no one, driver, ped or cyclist, has to alter their movement in any way because of my actions. As long as they haven't had to slow down, stop, speed up or alter their intended travel line because of my actions, I have not violated their right of way.

Now, lets not confuse violating the right of way with violating a traffic regulation, the two are NOT the same. I can run a red light and if there is no traffic, I haven't violated anyones right of way even though I failed to comply with a traffic law.

I do not think your poll is valid. Primarily, you have chosen two options that are complete opposites, the results are 'highly' predictable and therefore of little value.

Interfering with someone else's right-of-way, is not just rude it also introduces unnecessary personal risk. Your poll answers the question; "what percentage of respondents are mentally challenged". (can anybody see the ambiguity in my quoted question).

If a motorist sees you jump out of the path of a speeding train and into their right-of-way, they will likely think that was exactly what they would have done in the same circumstances, that it was sensible and not at all rude.

An equally loaded poll question would have been "is binary optical communication (middle finger) rude". Other than pulling the obvious troll imbecile out of the woodwork (peleton hater) it serves little purpose.

Slightly better, but still dubious, would have been to ask if riding assertively is likely to be construed by cagers as rude. A long time ago I found myself ill-equipped to handle an unwanted homosexual advance from a workplace superior (FYI I am straight) - these days it would/should not happen. In a similar sense, most motorists are ill-equipped to judge whether a cyclist riding assertively is being sensible or rude.

Pretty much across-the-board in life, being educated (or trained) results in people being properly equipped to handle the majority of life. Alas we live in a dumbed down society where stick and carrot philosophy is deemed superior to education or training. This is simply so that the powers that be, can remain in power and do what they do (e.g. turn a blind eye to the fraud that is the Federal Reserve System, sic.) In the meantime 48,000 people pay every year on American roads with their lives.

You have to be a fool to violate another vehicles right of way on a bicycle, because if the other vehicle doesn't give the right of way to you, you could get hit and rule number one of bicycling is DON'T GET HIT.

First of all, what is the definition of violating someone's right of way? To me, yeilding the right of way is making sure that no one, driver, ped or cyclist, has to alter their movement in any way because of my actions. As long as they haven't had to slow down, stop, speed up or alter their intended travel line because of my actions, I have not violated their right of way.

Now, lets not confuse violating the right of way with violating a traffic regulation, the two are NOT the same. I can run a red light and if there is no traffic, I haven't violated anyones right of way even though I failed to comply with a traffic law.

I tend to agree with this... but lets look at your comments a bit further... "As long as they haven't had to slow down, stop, speed up or alter their intended travel line because of my actions, I have not violated their right of way." So what does it mean when someone else (OK, a motorist) does speed up or alter their intended travel... because you did something "normal" like take a lane or put your arm out in a signal.

The classic case I am thinking of is you needing to make a left turn... and you put your arm out to signal based on seeing that the way appears clear... but a motorist speeds up, cutting you off... did you have ROW in the first place? (BTW I see this happening motorist to motorist on freeways too... )

Or say you are taking the lane, and are nicely destination positioned for going straight through at an intersection... but a motorist speeds up from behind you, does a swooping pass and then cuts you off...

Or of course the classic right hook where a line of travel is changed because you are there and the result is again, you get cut off...

Now would any of those situations tend to make you act rudely toward that motorist?

I tend to agree with this... but lets look at your comments a bit further... "As long as they haven't had to slow down, stop, speed up or alter their intended travel line because of my actions, I have not violated their right of way." So what does it mean when someone else (OK, a motorist) does speed up or alter their intended travel... because you did something "normal" like take a lane or put your arm out in a signal.

The classic case I am thinking of is you needing to make a left turn... and you put your arm out to signal based on seeing that the way appears clear... but a motorist speeds up, cutting you off... did you have ROW in the first place? (BTW I see this happening motorist to motorist on freeways too... )

Or say you are taking the lane, and are nicely destination positioned for going straight through at an intersection... but a motorist speeds up from behind you, does a swooping pass and then cuts you off...

Or of course the classic right hook where a line of travel is changed because you are there and the result is again, you get cut off...

Now would any of those situations tend to make you act rudely toward that motorist?

You are perfectly right. But in your scenario, its a situation where the cyclist has the right of way legally.

In my statement, what I meant was, in a situation where I don't legally have the right of way, as long as I don't interefere with anyone else, I haven't violated their right of way. For example, if I have a red light and a car on the intersecting road is three blocks away from the intersection, he technically has the right of way because he has a green light, but as long as I get across the intersection without making him alter his driving in any way, then I haven't violated his right of way.

You are perfectly right. But in your scenario, its a situation where the cyclist has the right of way legally.

In my statement, what I meant was, in a situation where I don't legally have the right of way, as long as I don't interefere with anyone else, I haven't violated their right of way. For example, if I have a red light and a car on the intersecting road is three blocks away from the intersection, he technically has the right of way because he has a green light, but as long as I get across the intersection without making him alter his driving in any way, then I haven't violated his right of way.

Yeah I see your point... does it count if the motorist flinched a bit as you dashed in front of them. :D

My point is that all those scenarios I presented are situations in which the cyclist has ROW and it is taken away by a heavy handed (footed) motorist... which results in cyclists "riding rudely" as a defense mechanism.

***********************************************

So back to the OP; I don't believe that cyclists start out rude, but are created that way by the environment in which they ride. I think there are fine lines between assertive, aggressive, and rude...

I didn't respond to the poll because I'm not sure how you define your terms.

I don't violate anyone's right of way in the sense that I don't ride in a way that would make someone else swerve or slam on their brakes to avoid me. But if no one is there, I will run stop signs or lights with glee. Theoretically, the lanes I'm crossing have the right of way, but if there is no actual car there, I ignore that. In other words, I ride by the rules of nature, not the artificial rules of law.

this thread brings up another question: why aren't motorcycles subject to noise ordinances?

this thread brings up another question: why aren't motorcycles subject to noise ordinances?

I often wonder this myself. I can't stand those absurdly loud motorcycles.

this thread brings up another question: why aren't motorcycles subject to noise ordinances?

Far better advocacy groups.

It's because motorcyclists don't have scofflaw members giving the rest of them a bad name....

;)

...I wanted to do a poll and see what people think.

I will do whatever it takes to get home in one piece.

It's because motorcyclists don't have scofflaw members giving the rest of them a bad name....

;)

I assume you are being sarcastic by the winkie. You should check this vid out anyway.

Bike Video 5 (Rock Version) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5XPoNfxN8&mode=related&search=)

I fail to see how breaking the law is the minimum for rude behavior. I think it's helpful to be rude when I bike, but that doesn't mean violating others right of way. It mostly means taking mine whenever I practicably can even if a typical driver would yield. It's easy to get pushed around out there.

So I wanna check both options of your poll.

I often wonder this myself. I can't stand those absurdly loud motorcycles.

I grew to despise motorcycles in college. I had a basement level room next to a parking lot. There's little that can wake me from a deep sleep but revving a typical motorcycle 20 feet away did it a few times.

I'd direct my anger at the school for designing the lot that way but what sort of child revs his engine in a parking lot?

I didn't respond to the poll because I'm not sure how you define your terms.

I don't violate anyone's right of way in the sense that I don't ride in a way that would make someone else swerve or slam on their brakes to avoid me. But if no one is there, I will run stop signs or lights with glee. Theoretically, the lanes I'm crossing have the right of way, but if there is no actual car there, I ignore that. In other words, I ride by the rules of nature, not the artificial rules of law.

The rules of nature would not allow for the traffic efficiency we achieve. Every intersection would be a major decision which would involve slowing down. So I'm glad to hear that you sacrifice a bit and follow the law when there is other traffic ;).

it seems the overall group behavior on american roads nearly dictates rudeness from a majority of road users regardless of mode of travel. such it is. there's a lot of waves and smiles too, don't get me wrong, but wether driving a car, bike or walking, i get the general impression from other road users of disregard of all others in pursuit of ones one expediency.

I don't see why the bicyclists should be expected to act any better than the motorists.

it seems the overall group behavior on american roads nearly dictates rudeness...

Naw. Using the behavior of others as an excuse for bad behavior is lame, 'fine print' clauses/qualifications notwithstanding.

It's often useful, even necessary, to be assertive. It's never appropriate to be rude (although rudeness is often in the eye of the beholder).

I won't violate someone's ROW. But I'm not going to wait all day while they decide whether they're going to exercise their ROW or not. If you snooze, I'm gone, baby. :) I'm also not going to give up my ROW easily. I don't doubt that some think I'm being rude. Actually, I'm quite polite. I just don't play silly games (especially the "I can wait longer than you can" game).



I don't see why the bicyclists should be expected to act any better than the motorists.

I've learned not to expect anything from other bicyclists although I would hope that they would not base their behavior on the worst behavior they see in others. Some motorists act like jerks; many do not.



I've noticed quite a few people accusing the Advocacy & Safety forum members of being summarily pro-bike, anti-car, to the point of always siding with bicyclists no matter how illegal or rude their behavior.

This is not my impression, so I wanted to do a poll and see what people think.

This thread seems to be based on a false premise-- that it's possible to characterize the opinion of A&S posters as if they are a homogenious group. Thinking of people as individuals is a lot more useful than categorizing them. I generally ignore comments regarding "bicyclists" or "A&S members" or "motorists," etc. because the makers of such comments surely don't have a clue.

Bicyclists are probably the most dispirate "group" I've ever been associated with. About the only trait that seems to characterize bicyclists is that a lot of them are nuts.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp

Yeah I see your point... does it count if the motorist flinched a bit as you dashed in front of them. :D
My point is that all those scenarios I presented are situations in which the cyclist has ROW and it is taken away by a heavy handed (footed) motorist... which results in cyclists "riding rudely" as a defense mechanism.

***********************************************

So back to the OP; I don't believe that cyclists start out rude, but are created that way by the environment in which they ride. I think there are fine lines between assertive, aggressive, and rude...

No, they must learn to HTFU.

As far as not giving up the right of way to a bully driver, thats not riding rudely, thats just driving assertively. If drivers think its rude, too bad.

Pedestrians, in my humble opinion, should be given much more kindness and consideration than drivers.

No, this is not anti-car, just pro-pedestrian.

this thread brings up another question: why aren't motorcycles subject to noise ordinances?

Yeah, well, that question brings to mind something a motorcyclist said to me. I was showing him my Electric Bike, and he was dumbfounded, flabbergasted, or whatever, and he said to me "But the only reason I ride is to make noise."
The concept of silent electric propulsion was lost on him.

I've gotten much more courteous as I've grown older.
I often yield the right of way to motor vehicles.

This hasn't resulted in any arguments, but if it does, I'm going to say "I gave you the right of way, right? How could give you the the R.O.W. if I didn't have it in the first place?"

Circle logic at it's best.

Yeah, well, that question brings to mind something a motorcyclist said to me. I was showing him my Electric Bike, and he was dumbfounded, flabbergasted, or whatever, and he said to me "But the only reason I ride is to make noise."
The concept of silent electric propulsion was lost on him.

I saw a nature show once about gorillas in the wild. They would shake every tree they passed and make lots of noise and commotion to make themselves seem bigger and more threatening to possible competitors. That's sort of how I feel about people who ride loud motorcycles.

Far better advocacy groups.

Bwahaha. Yeah right. Most motorcyclists can't even pronounce the word advocacy.
Sorry they bother you, but I I've learned to appreciate those annoying loud bikes. Thanks to them, all of my bikes have been equipped with free stealth technology. It's true! I regularly fly past speed-traps at 15 over the posted speed limit and the officers sometimes even wave at me.
They've been utterly conditioned to equate speed with noise and I therefore don't appear to be speeding to them.
I used to get annoyed at those loud bikes "ruining public perceptions of my pasttime", but now I thank those buffoons for eating all my tickets. If we were all gazelles running around on the Serengeti Plains, this would be the equivalent of the majority of the herd wearing belled collars to announce to the lion that dinner is on the way.

I saw a nature show once about gorillas in the wild. They would shake every tree they passed and make lots of noise and commotion to make themselves seem bigger and more threatening to possible competitors. That's sort of how I feel about people who ride loud motorcycles.



As a cyclist and motorcyclist I have to agree with this sentiment. I am sympathetic with the argument that 'loud pipes save lives'....but most loud pipes I hear are at intesections as moto guys gun their bikes to impress themselves. Alot of moto guys have contempt for cyclists also, because we wear helmets, driving a stake thru their 'helmet laws zuck' campaigns.

roughstuff

I saw a nature show once about gorillas in the wild. They would shake every tree they passed and make lots of noise and commotion to make themselves seem bigger and more threatening to possible competitors. That's sort of how I feel about people who ride loud motorcycles.

Its also that Hardley Ableson riders never outgrew a juvenile fascination with flatulence. Remember in Junior High how all you did was fart, make fart noises and tell fart jokes, well Harley riders are still never matured past that level.

As they ride by with their loud, backfiring bikes they are saying "hear and smell my fart."