Advocacy & Safety - No Wonder So Many Get Hit

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are. Both casual and serious cyclists routinely ignore the rules of the road. Rules they would no doubt follow if they were in a car. They cut through red lights all the time, dart between cars, ignore stop signs, and ride around at night with no reflective material or lights. Only a tiny handful seem to be concerned about living until tomorrow.

What really amazes me is how this ignorance is CELEBRATED by so many cyclists. The messenger who zips between cars and through red lights is seen as a cool professional, while the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear is a geek.

This your first post here?

Someone call Captain Obvious to the rescue.

-Kurt

The amazing thing is that so few of the cyclist in dark clothes, no lights or reflectors get hit. Its because the drivers are so alert and careful.

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are. Both casual and serious cyclists routinely ignore the rules of the road. Rules they would no doubt follow if they were in a car. They cut through red lights all the time, dart between cars, ignore stop signs, and ride around at night with no reflective material or lights. Only a tiny handful seem to be concerned about living until tomorrow.

What really amazes me is how this ignorance is CELEBRATED by so many cyclists. The messenger who zips between cars and through red lights is seen as a cool professional, while the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear is a geek.

Hey there... Geek here. (see below)

What amazes me as "the guy who waits at the light" is how many clearly don't have a clue.

I observe traffic... I've been a bike commuter on and off for a long long time, and I watch both cyclists and motorists, and buddy from my POV, as both a driver and a bike commuter, a lot of motorists take a lot of chances and there are a lot of motorists driving just short of the "feel method... "

The amazing thing is that so few of the cyclist in dark clothes, no lights or reflectors get hit. Its because the drivers are so alert and careful.

Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt!

I've made a lot of the same observations as the OP; today, in fact, was another one. I was rolling home, a little tired, so I wasn't going too fast, when a guy on an old steel 10-speed passed me -- then cut over to the other side of the road to ride against traffic! A true 'wtf' moment....

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are. Both casual and serious cyclists routinely ignore the rules of the road. Rules they would no doubt follow if they were in a car. They cut through red lights all the time, dart between cars, ignore stop signs, and ride around at night with no reflective material or lights. Only a tiny handful seem to be concerned about living until tomorrow.

What really amazes me is how this ignorance is CELEBRATED by so many cyclists. The messenger who zips between cars and through red lights is seen as a cool professional, while the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear is a geek.

Everybody should instead be celebrating car free, concerned-about-living, Mr. Perfect -YOU, is that it?

BTW, how many is "so many hit" cyclists; how do you know the reason ANY of the cyclists were hit, or if any fit your boogieman description.

in fact, the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear IS a geek!

:lol:

different cyclists have different strategies for surviving in an environment that is often hostile to cyclists, who are you to say that everyone should adopt YOUR strategy?

:rolleyes:

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people feel perfectly justified issuing silly blanket statements like this....

Naturally, YMMV....

Why would I ever behave like a car when I'm on a bike?

Bike: 20 pounds or so, small profile, good maneuverablity, good visibility (by the operator), relatively slow, not very dangerous.

Car: thousands of pounds, wide, poor maneuverability, poor visibility, fast (with effortless acceleration), potentially very dangerous.

Everybody should instead be celebrating car free, concerned-about-living, Mr. Perfect -YOU, is that it?

BTW, how many is "so many hit" cyclists; how do you know the reason ANY of the cyclists were hit, or if any fit your boogieman description.

But surely if you read BikeForums you'd know that the streets of America are littered with the broken bodies of fallen cyclists. You can hardly walk down the street without tripping over one.

in fact, the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear IS a geek!

:lol:

different cyclists have different strategies for surviving in an environment that is often hostile to cyclists, who are you to say that everyone should adopt YOUR strategy?

:rolleyes:

"Strategies for surviving," what a pantload. On a bike is about the safest place to be on the road. Calling it survival is just fear-mongering.

"Strategies for surviving," what a pantload. On a bike is about the safest place to be on the road. Calling it survival is just fear-mongering.

don't look at me, the OP is the one who thinks cycling is unsafe unless you do it the 'proper' way.

I've 'survived' many trips to the bathroom in my life, too; that doesn't mean I think going to the bathroom is inherently unsafe.

nor do I spend a lot of time actively thinking about my survival when I'm out on my bike, whether I'm obeying the so-called rules or not.

and you wouldn't catch me dead in lycra or a stupid hi-vis jacket, either (no pun intended)

Funny how few bad cyclists I see. Generally the worst behavior around here seems to be sloppy group rides. I can't remember the last time I saw someone riding a bike on the wrong side of the road. Running stop signs when it's clear, I do that. Everyone in a car does, I'd be endangered by stopping. I think I'm the only person interested in actually stopping at stop signs!

That and the motorcyclists. I see many motorcyclists stop and look look look before moving on. I do when on a motorbike. Too many speeders.

Actually, I hardly ever see a motorbiker do stupid or break any law except speeding, and that's pretty much essential on a motorbike. Best to be 3 mph over traffic speed.

I have no idea where the OP sees all these scofflaws. Perhaps he lives in a city. Cities breed bad driving and attitudes. City people moving out here seem to take about 3 years to learn to drive. Eventually there will be a tractor around that blind corner.

Oh, and on blanket statements. They don't work very well, really. What am I for example? I ride a commuting bicycle slowly. I ride a road bike dressed like superman fast. I ride a motorcycle done up in bright green geek wear (the bikers still wave). I drive a truck slow. I drive a sports car well. I drive an SUV on dirt roads slowly with stuff in it. I'm not just a "cyclist."

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are. Both casual and serious cyclists routinely ignore the rules of the road. Rules they would no doubt follow if they were in a car. They cut through red lights all the time, dart between cars, ignore stop signs, and ride around at night with no reflective material or lights. Only a tiny handful seem to be concerned about living until tomorrow.

What really amazes me is how this ignorance is CELEBRATED by so many cyclists. The messenger who zips between cars and through red lights is seen as a cool professional, while the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear is a geek.Cosmo -

I was a law-abiding, traffic-signal-following commuter, and I got hit two different times, in the afternoon, clearr day, no rain. My blinkers were running, I was wearing my reflective stuff and my helmet, and both times someone raced past me to turn right and clipped my front wheel, flipping me into the street. Please tell me what I was doing wrong, since you obviously know so much more than the rest of us?

Hmmm, I see cyclist all over the road like they own it or something. Sometimes two or three people on the same bike, riding without lights, helmets, with bikes that are definitely past their prime.

About the only thing they seem to watch out for is the pedestrians and horses. :rolleyes: Cars, trucks, taxis have to watch out for the cyclist. What's with that?

Oh, it is called Costa Rica where the cyclist actually have rights on the road. Hit one and you are supporting them and perhaps their family for a LONG time.

I saw some people doing this last week...
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z89/cattpowerr/acrobats.jpg
...and I'm still trembling with indignant rage.

Please tell me what I was doing wrong...

cycling in Texas?

;)

I saw some people doing this last week...
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z89/cattpowerr/acrobats.jpg
...and I'm still trembling with indignant rage.

Fixie hipsters.

-Kurt

cycling in Texas?

;)You know, you probably have a point there, for more reasons than one.

I saw some people doing this last week...
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z89/cattpowerr/acrobats.jpg
...and I'm still trembling with indignant rage.


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:



I haven't ridden in traffic yet.

...it never ceases to amaze me...They cut through red lights all the time, dart between cars, ignore stop signs...

Precisely why I ride a bike. To do those things you listed. Like a gazelle through a field of fat cows!

I am not a Ninja tho.

Fixie hipsters.

now that was funny

Wow, I have the most amazing good fortune.

Everywhere I ride, the large majority of riders and drivers do just fine.

Funny how few bad cyclists I see. Generally the worst behavior around here seems to be sloppy group rides.


In the English seaside town I'm visiting the main crime is ridding in the gutter. The reckless *******s!

A few days ago I saw an old lady on an ancient "shopper" reading far enough from the kerb so that she wasn't in danger of getting her wheel stuck in a storm drain. I felt liek cheering.



Oh, and on blanket statements. They don't work very well, really.

That's because of the muffling effect - you should sticking your head out when you want to speak.

Everybody should instead be celebrating car free, concerned-about-living, Mr. Perfect -YOU, is that it?

BTW, how many is "so many hit" cyclists; how do you know the reason ANY of the cyclists were hit, or if any fit your boogieman description.

My lifestyle? It's far too strange to be celebrated. Tonight for example I shall be eating what I've eaten for the past week--two raw oysters out of the shell and some almonds. I shall then continue to build my flintlock smooth rifle until I collapse with exhaustion on the floor where I sleep.

No, what I'm suggesting is something far more basic. Cyclists should follow the rules of the road, or at least make an effort at it. That means stopping at stop signs at least when there's traffic and stopping for red lights. It means watching where you're going and AVOIDING risks rather than flying into them.

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people feel perfectly justified issuing silly blanket statements like this....

Naturally, YMMV....

My results have varied. I'm basing my conclusion on what I've SEEN on the roads. I'm out there every day, all through the year. I see a lot of cyclists, and I am constantly amazed by the chances they're willing to take. Flying through intersections at high speed listening to some MP3. Cutting across oncoming lanes and back again. Or the fellow I saw last week who was RIDING along right smack in the middle of the oncoming lane. For block after block! As if that was the appropriate thing to do. We were about the same pace, and he would come over to the right lane when a car approached, then go right back over!


I was a law-abiding, traffic-signal-following commuter, and I got hit two different times, in the afternoon, clearr day, no rain. My blinkers were running, I was wearing my reflective stuff and my helmet, and both times someone raced past me to turn right and clipped my front wheel, flipping me into the street.

So what, your solution has been to go without a helmet, blinkers, reflective clothing and started darting around between oncoming cars? It is precisely BECAUSE there are so many idiot car drivers that *WE* need to be that much more careful and even paranoid.

Cyclists should follow the rules of the road, or at least make an effort at it. That means stopping at stop signs at least when there's traffic and stopping for red lights. It means watching where you're going and AVOIDING risks rather than flying into them.

so what is the cyclist injury and fatality rate in Spenard? And what do the police reports say about who's at fault (typically it's pretty close to 50:50 for adult cyclists)?

So what, your solution has been to go without a helmet, blinkers, reflective clothing and started darting around between oncoming cars? It is precisely BECAUSE there are so many idiot car drivers that *WE* need to be that much more careful and even paranoid.

Frankly, after some 40+ years of cycling, that is the part I least enjoy about "mixing it up with traffic..."

It just gets old. :(

so what is the cyclist injury and fatality rate in Spenard? And what do the police reports say about who's at fault (typically it's pretty close to 50:50 for adult cyclists)?

I haven't read all the police reports. I've seen quite a few arising from litigation. The recent surveys of accident locations show we have a lot more bike accidents in Anchorage than we should, including some fatal. I've seen plenty of near-misses. You would think that this would make cyclists more careful, but for most of them it simply doesn't seem to matter.

I've been car free for a few years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how stubbornly idiotic most cyclists are. Both casual and serious cyclists routinely ignore the rules of the road. Rules they would no doubt follow if they were in a car. They cut through red lights all the time, dart between cars, ignore stop signs, and ride around at night with no reflective material or lights. Only a tiny handful seem to be concerned about living until tomorrow.

What really amazes me is how this ignorance is CELEBRATED by so many cyclists. The messenger who zips between cars and through red lights is seen as a cool professional, while the guy who waits at the light and wears protective gear is a geek.
Actually no, the guy who waits in line is not a geek, he's an idiot. If i want to stay in line and waste my time i'd be driving. And i've been cutting reds for years, it can be done safely. What's more, i'm not a car and won't pretend to be. Traffic rules are made for cars, my city is built for cars, 99% of vehicles around me are cars, so don't expect me play nice.

so what is the cyclist injury and fatality rate in Spenard? And what do the police reports say about who's at fault (typically it's pretty close to 50:50 for adult cyclists)?

Last report I saw was something like 6-8 cyclist fatality in 15 years. BUT, we just had 2 in 4 weeks. Some dude got T boned in the crosswalk on tudor road, he probally saw the traffic stopped on the left side and thought he had the right of way. And they had 1st fatality in 7 years with the fireweed 400, guy fell and slid under the guardrail and hit his head (yes he was wearing a helmet) on the metal piling.

Traffic rules are made for cars, my city is built for cars, 99% of vehicles around me are cars, so don't expect me play nice.

i'd be more than happy to follow the rules of the road to the letter of the law if the rules of the road were written for bikes and enforced upon cars.

mmm.. 35 km/h speed limit.

and what does the fireweed 400 have to do with anything? certainly didn't involve vehicles or motor signals, or traffic laws.

and what does the fireweed 400 have to do with anything? certainly didn't involve vehicles or motor signals, or traffic laws.

The question was fatality rate. Not how many were auto/cycle accidents. Learn to read.

Originally Posted by randya
"so what is the cyclist injury and fatality rate in Spenard? And what do the police reports say about who's at fault (typically it's pretty close to 50:50 for adult cyclists)?

I, logically, assumed the original question concerned vehicle/bicycle accidents. That seems quite reasonable to infer, and would make the point about the Fireweed irrelevant. This whole thread discusses bike/vehicle interactions.

From what I heard, from someone intimately involved with that race, the cyclist's death was an accident and solely the rider's fault. A point about someone dying in an annual (i.e. once per year) marathon racing event does not contribute to the discussion of a cyclist's everyday behavior in traffic.

Learn to use your immense reading power to reasonably deduce what someone is asking you when it isn't explicitly stated.

Is your point that darting around and ignoring traffic laws should be encouraged so long as the actual fatality rate is not high? The Muni put out a map of accidents as part of their bike plan a few months ago.

http://www.muni.org/iceimages/transplan/Anchorage%20Bicycle%20Plan_Public%20Review%20Draft_March%202009.pdf

At pp's 20-25 there's a review of the statistics.


If i want to stay in line and waste my time i'd be driving.

How old are you? How often are you on the road? I roll the dice every single day of the week. I want the odds of a crash to be as small as possible. The goal is not to win some imaginary race, it's to stay above ground and out of the hospital.

I wouldn't care what people like you did, except that it reflects poorly on all cyclists and makes it more difficult to get public funds for cycling improvements.

How old are you? How often are you on the road?

is there a certain age limit for people's experiences and opinions to gain legitimacy in your eyes? can you post that number? will you take our word for it, or do we need to show picture id?

http://www.muni.org/iceimages/transplan/Anchorage%20Bicycle%20Plan_Public%20Review%20Draft_March%202009.pdf

At pp's 20-25 there's a review of the statistics.

1. looks like the crash rate is actually decreasing, that is explicitly stated in the report.

2. looks like the major cause of crashes is motorists right-hooking cyclists, followed by motorists failing to yield the ROW to cyclists; as is typical the most common crash locations are intersections; as is also typical the highest crash rates are on busy arterials with lots of intersections and driveways and little or no accomodation made for cyclists; high crash rates at the intersection of separated paths and roadways are also discussed. Reported dooring incidents seem lower than in most other places, maybe that's because it doesn't look from the photos like there is a lot of curb side parking in Anchorage. As is also typical, youth cyclist crash rates are higher than adult cyclist crash rates.

3. nothing in the report suggests that cyclists themselves behave any worse in Anchorage than anywhere else, or that cyclist mis-behaviour is a primary cause of crashes with motor vehicles. However, while they do show a graph of motorist behaviour before a crash with a cyclist, there is no corresponding graph showing cyclist behaviour before a crash with a motorist. The overall impression is that motorists are responsible for most crashes, but that is implicit, not explicit, in the report.

4. I think you should just do what you think you have to for your own safety and stop worrying about what the other cyclists may or may not be doing wrong.

Actually no, the guy who waits in line is not a geek, he's an idiot. If i want to stay in line and waste my time i'd be driving. And i've been cutting reds for years, it can be done safely. What's more, i'm not a car and won't pretend to be. Traffic rules are made for cars, my city is built for cars, 99% of vehicles around me are cars, so don't expect me play nice.

and.....thatishowyougethit.

and.....thatishowyougethit.



while there may be a perception that many cyclists recklessly disobey stop-signs and traffic signals, our analysis shows that less than 3% of collisions involve a cyclist failing to stop at a controlled intersection.

For the record, I don't typically "run" red lights, personally.

I think you should just do what you think you have to for your own safety and stop worrying about what the other cyclists may or may not be doing wrong.

I would be happy to, except as I stated cyclists have a HORRIBLE rep in this town because so many of us screw around and ignore the rules of the road. Or just plain common sense. It decreases funding, decreases ridership and taints the jury pool. The solution is simple--cops need to start giving riders who disobey the law tickets.


is there a certain age limit for people's experiences and opinions to gain legitimacy in your eyes? can you post that number? will you take our word for it, or do we need to show picture id?

No express limit, but there is a certain foolishness that comes with youth.

I would be happy to, except as I stated cyclists have a HORRIBLE rep in this town because so many of us screw around and ignore the rules of the road. Or just plain common sense. It decreases funding, decreases ridership and taints the jury pool. The solution is simple--cops need to start giving riders who disobey the law tickets.

every cyclist could become a model road user and there would still be anti-cyclist prejudice. mostly because most motorists don't know squat about what the law says with regard to cycling, and many things cyclists do that are completely legal still inflame the motorists. educating the motorists is at least as important as educating cyclists, if not more so.

every cyclist could become a model road user and there would still be anti-cyclist prejudice.

And you know this, how? As far as I know, nobody has ever even tried it. The critical mass method of ignoring the law certainly hasn't earned us many friends.


educating the motorists is at least as important as educating cyclists, if not more so.

By telling them what? That cyclists are erratic and may break any and all rules they chose? That's not terribly helpful.

And you know this, how? As far as I know, nobody has ever even tried it. The critical mass method of ignoring the law certainly hasn't earned us many friends.

By telling them what? That cyclists are erratic and may break any and all rules they chose? That's not terribly helpful.

The following comments were posted on another forum in response to a bunch of whinging that cyclists should be taxed to use the roads. I know the subject is slightly different, but the sentiment behind the argument is really pretty much the same as the sentiment behind the argument that you are trying to make. Maybe you will find them helpful in understanding what I am talking about (but I seriously doubt it given your apparent lack of interest in any point of view but your own):


Apparently the commenters on this editorial ain't buyin' it. The majority (so far) still say "make bikes pay!"

Again, the problem is that Joe Motorist will not see an increase in bicycling as a net good. Drivers mostly just see the (in their view) one scofflaw cyclist arrogantly hogging the whole lane going 4mph for 17 blocks with no helmet while 29 cars are forced to a crawl as the cyclist merrily blows red lights and stop signs, leaving a wake of utter chaos and destruction behind them. TAX that guy already! Put a license plate on his bike! And make him wear a helmet, an orange vest, and knee and elbow pads!

The typical sentiments expressed above are why the motoring public wants bikes registered and licensed (taxed). The "bikes don't pay for roads" argument is only an excuse to bring up "accountability" issues. If it could be shown by a trustworthy, neutral, third party that most cyclists are being completely ripped off by unfair allocation of tax revenue for transportation infrastructure (may or may not be true, but let's say it could be proved beyond any doubt to every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there), I would bet that drivers would still be clamoring to "make bikes pay!" because they want those free love, hippie, lawbreaking, spandex-wearing, non-stopping, pedestrian-mowing, traffic-weaving, lane-hogging, sidewalk-riding, helmetless, lightless, invisible, suicidal, tax-evading, freeloading, traffic-blocking, arrogant, self-righteous, dreadlock-sporting, non-signaling, dorky-looking, gay cyclists to be "accountable", not because they care about who pays for roads.

Sorry to be a little extreme, but I have started to think that "who pays for roads" is not the real issue that the public wants resolved.


Here is another perspective--one that I have shared over on the Oregonian forums--that looks at the question of why there is such a demand specifically for cyclists to pay extra.

1.a. Who is demanding infrastructure? As a cyclist, I am perfectly happy to ride in the street and have drivers go around me. Many times, a bike lane is added to the road simply by painting a stripe and leaving everything else unchanged. Did the stripe add width to the road? No. Why do we need it? Bike lanes often create hazardous situations and arguably make cycling MORE dangerous. I contend that the major benefit of bike lanes is for motorists because they keep cyclists "out of the way". So even IF bike lanes were 100% paid for by gas taxes, why would motorists complain about paying?

1.b. Bike lanes are not the only bit of restricted or "extra" pavement out there. What about HOV lanes? If I am sitting alone in my car in some backed-up lane of an entrance ramp or a freeway, and there is an HOV lane next to me, how come I can't use it? I paid for it, for crying out loud! Why do drivers not complain about HOV lanes or even passing lanes for that matter? Those pieces of road are 3 times the size of any bike lane, yet they are perfectly well accepted "extras" that nobody minds paying for, even if some drivers can't use them. I've had one person explain that HOV lanes are there to ease the flow of traffic, so he doesn't mind paying for them. I think the irony was lost on him. Also, don't get me started on curbside parking in residential neighborhoods. Who decided that I should be able to store my private auto in public space without paying any extra? Residential parking renders up to 2/3 of the street unusable, yet nobody complains about that.

2. But what about off-street paths and bike-specific signs and signals? To that I say, "what about sidewalks and pedestrian-specific signs and signals?" Why do people complain about one and not the other? Also, "Bike paths" around here are not strictly for bikes. They are Multi-use paths, used by peds, strollers, skaters, dogs, Canada geese, nutria--they are not for bicycle use only, and can be as dangerous as riding on the sidewalk at times. If all these users get to use such paths, why should only cyclists have to pay extra? Again, MUPs often make cycling more dangerous and inconvenient, while at the same time keeping cyclists out of the way of drivers--so who benefits?

3. Who is freeloading? Motorists who complain that cyclists are freeloading because they don't pay registration or gas taxes overlook the largest population of true freeloaders on the roads today: passengers. Carrying passengers is glorified as "carpooling" and nobody minds that all these passengers are out there taking advantage of other people's cars on which they have paid no registration or gas taxes. Here is a mental visualization to try: Picture a car moving down the road (maybe passing you up) in an HOV lane with a driver and a passenger--keep in mind the passenger doesn't own the car and hasn't paid any reg fees. Now allow the car and driver to slowly fade away so only the passenger is left. So we now have a disembuggied passenger floating in the air down the road--still hasn't paid anything extra to use the road. Now picture that passenger drifting over to the right to a bike lane while a bike slowly fades in beneath them. Now we have the former passenger in the HOV lane riding a bike along in the bike lane. Why is one perfectly acceptable while the other is "no fair"? Instead of the above, imagine that the passenger fades over to their own car, and the driver and the passenger-turned-driver now both have to merge in front of you; would that be better?

To me, the problem is two-fold. In the first place, there is a failure of imagination. Most non-cyclists, as they drive around looking at all the curbside parking, HOV lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, etc. are thinking to themselves:

"I'm by myself today, but tomorrow I might have a passenger, so I'll use the HOV lane."

"I'm driving now, but soon I'll have to park--then I'll need that curbside parking."

"After I park, I'll have to get out my car and (ugh) walk, so I'm glad the sidewalk and all those ped signals are there."

The thing they DON'T think, while driving along looking at the bike lane is, "I'm driving today, but tomorrow I'm going to ride my bike, so I'll get to use the bike lane."

In the second place, there are enough drivers who simply dislike cyclists and want them punished (as I mentioned in my earlier post), and discouraged from being on the road. I think this latter issue is why folks fail to complain about the things I mentioned above, and complain loudly about how "bikes should pay".
http://bikeportland.org/2009/07/17/columbian-editorial-says-bike-fee-idea-is-a-stinker/

on top of that, I guess you also fail to realize that there's a huge double standard when it comes to wanting cyclists to be model road users, given that the motorists have as much if not more disregard for the law than cyclists do, with much more extreme potential consequences when they eff up.

Follow any motorist around for about five minutes and I guarantee you they are going to violate a traffic law, whether it's speeding, running a red light, failure to come to a full stop at a stop sign, failure to signal a turn or a lane change, failure to yield right of way to another motorist, a pedestrian or a cyclist, or any number of other traffic violations that motorists regularly commit.

And you know this, how? As far as I know, nobody has ever even tried it. The critical mass method of ignoring the law certainly hasn't earned us many friends.

By telling them what? That cyclists are erratic and may break any and all rules they chose? That's not terribly helpful.

Most of the things cyclists do which irritate motorists are completely legal, like taking the lane to avoid hazards or taking the lane when the lane is too narrow to safely share. these are the things motorists need to be educated about. I dare you to solicit opinions on this from any random group of non-cyclists.

on top of that, I guess you also fail to realize that there's a huge double standard when it comes to wanting cyclists to be model road users, given that the motorists have as much if not more disregard for the law than cyclists do, with much more extreme potential consequences when they eff up.

Nonsense. I have seen very few motor vehicles fly through reds like bike riders do so often--indeed most of the time. Ditto with stop signs. Nor do I see motor vehicles attempting to drive down the oncoming lane. I don't see many motorcycles try to cut in between cars, either. I don't think much of cars in general, but the drivers in this country obey the rules of the road FAR more often than cyclists do. Most of the time I am the only cyclist bothering to even stop at red lights.


I dare you to solicit opinions on this from any random group of non-cyclists.

I've heard plenty of opinions on this subject. And seen them posted re. the local bike plan. People believe cyclists are a bunch of lawless kids, and unfortunately most of the time they're correct.

Nonsense. I have seen very few motor vehicles fly through reds like bike riders do so often--indeed most of the time. Ditto with stop signs. Nor do I see motor vehicles attempting to drive down the oncoming lane. I don't see many motorcycles try to cut in between cars, either. I don't think much of cars in general, but the drivers in this country obey the rules of the road FAR more often than cyclists do. Most of the time I am the only cyclist bothering to even stop at red lights.
no, you're correct, motorists run red lights differently than cyclists, they see a yellow light and gun it so they are flying through the light at 50 mph after it changes. I can go for a walk for half an hour at lunch time and easily see half a dozen or more motorists doing this in that time period.

:eek:

Cyclists run red lights when no cross traffic is coming, so they aren't around when the light turns green for the yahoos in cars and trucks.

Stop signs? it may seem like they've stopped 'cause they had been going 35, but if there is no cross traffic most motorists roll stop signs at 5-10 mph, about the same speed a cautious cyclist might do the same thing.

Wrong way motorists? I see someone mistakenly driving the wrong way on a one way street at least once a month.

splitting lanes? that's legal for cyclists and motorcyclists in many places.

:)

don't even get me started on failing to signal or yield, but I see you didn't comment on that so I'm going to assume you agree with me on that one.

;)


I've heard plenty of opinions on this subject. And seen them posted re. the local bike plan. People believe cyclists are a bunch of lawless kids, and unfortunately most of the time they're correct.
Do you believe everything you read on the internet too???

:eek:

Why would I ever behave like a car when I'm on a bike?

Bike: 20 pounds or so, small profile, good maneuverablity, good visibility (by the operator), relatively slow, not very dangerous.

Car: thousands of pounds, wide, poor maneuverability, poor visibility, fast (with effortless acceleration), potentially very dangerous.

Because you have been given the same rights to use the roads as cars are given. Because drivers have more respect for you when they see you abiding by the laws the same as they do. Because it is the law.