Advocacy & Safety - Bicyclists who give us a bad name

Last night i was coming back from music practice at my Church. Usually i take the bicycle, but there were T-storms in the area, and i also needed to fill up my car and get gas for the lawn mower. I was about 1/2 mile from home on my road and i saw 3 bicyclists ahead, probably from the campground down the road. They were riding like complete clowns; swerving all over the place and acting extremely unpredictable. When i got closer, they all got to the right side in a single-ish line still kinda swerving. I watched them very closely and passed with care. As soon as i was past, i saw them swerve back out into and all over the road in my mirrors. I parked my car in my driveway and as i was walking to my house, i heard someone honk their horn. I got in and my dad told me that he just saw 3 bicycles fooling around and guessed that the car was trying to go around them. We went outside and saw a car about 1/4 mile down the road stopped and the 3 bicyclists, who were having a conversation. Not sure if it was the same car who honked and not sure if there was any confrontation going on. We couldn't hear what was being said.

It makes me wonder if because of those 3 being idiots, if now that driver has a bad taste in his mouth or a negativity for bicycles. Also, is that person going to take any rage that they might have on the next bicycle they see, which might be me riding down the road?

I'm not gonna worry about it or lose any sleep over it. It just makes me wonder if bicyclists like that screw it up for the rest of us riding correctly and trying to follow the laws the best we can.

I was drivng the other day and a motorist didn't stop for a stop-sign, then on the highway there was another driver that was tailgating and swerving all over the place trying to pass other cars in a very un-safe manner. Got off the highway, was on a rural road and a farm machine was hogging the entire lane and a bunch of the on-coming lane, I could hardly pass him, had to ignore the double yellow around a corner, I was in a hurry!

What will it take to give 20-yr old male drivers of black BMWs with tinted windows a bad name?

So I think the handful of posts above mine have the right answer, expressed in the form of sarcasm. And I think sarcasm is the most natural way for people to express this idea ... because this comes up pretty often.


It makes me wonder if because of those 3 being idiots, if now that driver has a bad taste in his mouth or a negativity for bicycles. Also, is that person going to take any rage that they might have on the next bicycle they see, which might be me riding down the road?

If the person got out of the car to have a conversation of some kind with the cyclists, they probably won't have any lasting rage from the incident. You didn't see any punches being thrown, or anything like that, so it's probably a level-headed individual, who probably told the cyclists more or less what you just told us.

But more to the point: there's no reason to think the goofiness you saw gave all drivers a hatred for cyclists. That one motorist has his or her opinion, which probably didn't change all that much today, but other drivers are different people, and have their own thoughts on the subject. On the same note, cyclists are individuals, too; hating all of them based on the behavior of a handful doesn't make sense, either. What's going on is something like the Hatfields and McCoys; Jeb insulted your sister, so you need to kill someone in his family. Anyone will do. Once we turn on that primitive us/them part of the brain, "them" stop being individuals. If those three cyclists can give me a bad name when I didn't even know they existed until today ... then oh well, I guess.

White guy robbed a bank yesterday. I hate when white guys give the rest of us white guys a bad name.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393.jpg

Off topic: Chip, your poster of TLJ's sheriff character portrayal still has a lasting impression on me from his dark, sobering, and "not feel good" movie. Definitely not a movie for the Bruce Willis yippee ki yay crowd.

I'm not gonna worry about it or lose any sleep over it.

Good idea.

I definitely see all of your points. I was originally thinking about this because there's so few cyclists in my area, which i'm sure would make no difference. I guess i should have worded it better than i did. I was kinda thinking irrationally at the time.

in Corvallis, we have bike lanes on both sides of the street. Everyday I see one joker biking in the wrong direction on the wrong side, pissing off cars and other cyclists.

Or even worse, the joker is on a skateboard, which are confined to the sidewalks.

....I was kinda thinking irrationally at the time.
I always blame it on the bartender that over-served me :lol:

Last night i was coming back from music practice at my Church. Usually i take the bicycle, but there were T-storms in the area, and i also needed to fill up my car and get gas for the lawn mower. I was about 1/2 mile from home on my road and i saw 3 bicyclists ahead, probably from the campground down the road. They were riding like complete clowns; swerving all over the place and acting extremely unpredictable. When i got closer, they all got to the right side in a single-ish line still kinda swerving. I watched them very closely and passed with care. As soon as i was past, i saw them swerve back out into and all over the road in my mirrors. I parked my car in my driveway and as i was walking to my house, i heard someone honk their horn. I got in and my dad told me that he just saw 3 bicycles fooling around and guessed that the car was trying to go around them. We went outside and saw a car about 1/4 mile down the road stopped and the 3 bicyclists, who were having a conversation. Not sure if it was the same car who honked and not sure if there was any confrontation going on. We couldn't hear what was being said.

It makes me wonder if because of those 3 being idiots, if now that driver has a bad taste in his mouth or a negativity for bicycles. Also, is that person going to take any rage that they might have on the next bicycle they see, which might be me riding down the road?

I'm not gonna worry about it or lose any sleep over it. It just makes me wonder if bicyclists like that screw it up for the rest of us riding correctly and trying to follow the laws the best we can.


Don't worry about it too much or lose sleep over it, but I can't help but see how the motorist isn't going to come away from that encounter with anything but a negative view towards cyclists. Sadly it's human nature that if we can't take our frustrations out on the one who caused them that we are likely to take them out on the next person to cross our path.

And stop and think about it this way, why are there so many laws being put into place to limit where we can and cannot ride our bikes? It's because a person on a bike inconvenienced someone in a car. They got all upset (whether it was deserved or not doesn't matter) they circulated a petition to "get something done." Once they got enough signatures on their petition they presented it to their elected officials telling them "something needs to be done about this." S/he writes up a bill and presents it. It gets enough votes to pass and it is than given to the governor to sign, and the next thing you know there is a new law saying that bicyclists can't do this or they have to do this.

I think from what has been said that that is pretty much what has happened here in Fl in regards to bike lanes. And we now have a new mandatory bike lane law that goes into effect September first.

Someone saw some cyclists who were not using the bike lane and were riding in a manner that they didn't lik, approve of or was appropriate. And so they either got a petition started or they contacted some elected offical who agree with them that "something" needed to be done, and we now have a MBL in Fl. And sadly it won't matter to the person(s) who were "inconvenienced" if the person(s) on the bicycle(s) were acting in a legal and safe matter all that will matter is that they were "inconvenienced" and thought that what the cyclist(s) were doing was dangerous and that they need to "protected" from themselves. Especially if they aren't going to take their safety seriously.

We've seen it with LEO's, they think that just because they view the actions of a cyclist to be dangerous and unsafe that they must be and that the cyclist "needs" to be protected from themselves. Couple that with the fact that probably a lot of cops don't really fully understand the laws as they apply to cyclists and we really do have a dangerous situation.

in Corvallis, we have bike lanes on both sides of the street. Everyday I see one joker biking in the wrong direction on the wrong side, pissing off cars and other cyclists.

Or even worse, the joker is on a skateboard, which are confined to the sidewalks.
Oh the horror! Bet it really super duper works on nanny boys' panties getting bunched because the "joker" doesn't wear a helmet too, eh?:lol:

Were the cyclist teens? If they were, would you think drivers would lump an experienced and/or adult rider with very, very young ones?

Not to say that being a young biker automatically makes you: unpredictable, immature and an inexperienced rider. But hell, the ones I usually see swerving all over the road - on purpose - are usually teens.

If a driver developed a gripe against cyclists because of that, then I would think the driver already had one in the making.

Hey, at least they singled up.

Okay, I get annoyed at the folks who feel justified harassing cyclists because "they all break the law" when the fact is that damned near every motorist breaks the law on every trip. That said, this posting is just what I was thinking today. On a narrow cat. 3 hill I came upon an older cyclist (in his 60s) who was weaving a bit. As I approached him, I commented on his jersey; he didn't respond. As I went to pass him he weaved across the double yellow. I was already on his left, so I had to go to the middle of the oncoming lane to complete my pass. As I went by I said something in the way of a greeting (he was the first cyclist I had seen all day and this was mile 100). He almost fell off his bike. He was completely unaware of my presence (in spite of my loud comment on approach) because he had earbuds in. So, now every car that passes me will have passed him first and he's weaving all over the road, not paying any attention and can't hear approaching traffic. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I had several buzzings from passing motorists during the 10 miles I was on that road. I usually have at most one bad passing event on that stretch. Maybe it was just a bad day, but I wonder if the motorists weren't taking out their frustration at having to deal with a crappy cyclist on the next cyclist they encountered.

I wonder what the chances are of those 3 idiots on bikes hurting someone?

When motorists complain to me about cyclists breaking rules, I always point out

1) motorists break rules too

and,

2) cyclists rarely hurt people like motorists do when they break them

I wonder what the chances are of those 3 idiots on bikes hurting someone?

When motorists complain to me about cyclists breaking rules, I always point out

1) motorists break rules too

and,

2) cyclists rarely hurt people like motorists do when they break them

In this case, it sounds like the cyclists were swerving when no other traffic was present, then moving to the right to let cars pass.

I think the OP has very high standards for what he considers "acceptable" conduct. He needs to loosen up a bit, IMO, or at least quit imposing his own standards on everybody else.

In this case, it sounds like the cyclists were swerving when no other traffic was present, then moving to the right to let cars pass.

I think the OP has very high standards for what he considers "acceptable" conduct. He needs to loosen up a bit, IMO, or at least quit imposing his own standards on everybody else.

it sounds like a lot of motorists who complain about cyclists who "break all the rules"

They too, seem to have high standards that they never apply to themselves.

On a narrow cat. 3 hill I came upon an older cyclist (in his 60s) who was weaving a bit. As I approached him, I commented on his jersey; he didn't respond. As I went to pass him he weaved across the double yellow. I was already on his left, so I had to go to the middle of the oncoming lane to complete my pass. As I went by I said something in the way of a greeting (he was the first cyclist I had seen all day and this was mile 100). He almost fell off his bike. He was completely unaware of my presence (in spite of my loud comment on approach) because he had earbuds in.

I hate having to pass a cyclist with earphones.

In this case, it sounds like the cyclists were swerving when no other traffic was present, then moving to the right to let cars pass.

I think the OP has very high standards for what he considers "acceptable" conduct. He needs to loosen up a bit, IMO, or at least quit imposing his own standards on everybody else.

Roody,

Would you consider the same behavior to be acceptable if it was done by a motorist or person on a motorcycle or scooter? I mean hey IF no one else is on the road why not drive anywhere on it and in any way that one feels like?

^ I think that's why people typically learn to drive in empty parking lots. No one else is there, so it's ok to mess up.

God forbid three adults were having fun on bikes!

God forbid three adults were having fun on bikes!

I never forbade any such thing. Say...are you a white man, per chance?


:D

what will it take to give 20-yr old male drivers of black bmws with tinted windows a bad name?


ex-girlfriends

Roody,

Would you consider the same behavior to be acceptable if it was done by a motorist or person on a motorcycle or scooter? I mean hey IF no one else is on the road why not drive anywhere on it and in any way that one feels like?

Why are we comparing Orange Krates and unleaded anyway?

Why is there always the implication that there is mortal sin involved in being human?

Why is there Entertainment Tonight when the skies have stars beyond measure?

Why AM I asking all these dumb questions?

I hate having to pass a cyclist with earphones.

Nobody in Ontario, Oregon seems to care about anti-cellphone laws.

We'll send them to Washington. You should make good revenue for a while.

I never forbade any such thing. Say...are you a white man, per chance?


:D
Only where my farmer tan isn't :D

Roody,

Would you consider the same behavior to be acceptable if it was done by a motorist or person on a motorcycle or scooter? I mean hey IF no one else is on the road why not drive anywhere on it and in any way that one feels like?
Yes, acceptable--bearing in mind that an automobile is a low-quality vehicle because it's harder to control and more dangerous than a bike.

Today I was driving (unusual for me!) and a guy on s skateboard actually passed me. He was cutting across lanes, swerving, doing tricks, and salmoning. I thought, "How cool. His mastery of his vehicle is superb...total control, concentration and awareness. I wonder if I should swap my bike for a board?"

^ I think that's why people typically learn to drive in empty parking lots. No one else is there, so it's ok to mess up.

I've got no problems with people who are learning to drive or to ride a motorcycle, or scooter in an empty parking lot or the "back 40" of some farm. Setting up cones and what not to practice driving in and around. At least at first to get the basics of braking and accelerating, etc. but eventually they're going to have to move on to the roads in order to get more experience.

But my comment was more to the point that if it was okay for the cyclists to ride the way that they were because there wasn't anyone else on the road. If it is/was okay for the cyclist to behave the way that they were because no one else was on the road than it is okay for the driver of car, truck, motorcycle or scooter to drive in the same manner of there isn't anyone else on the road. And I am pretty sure that we all know that even if they were the only vehicle on the road for miles in any direction if a cop saw them that they would be pulled over and ticketed for reckless driving.

So why should cyclists be able to do something that other vehicles on the road cannot do?

And I think that it is safe to say that we all know, understand and realize that that is the type of cyclist who makes life difficult for the rest of us as well as being the reasoning/logic to pass various "anti-cycling? laws that get passed all the time.

Why are we comparing Orange Krates and unleaded anyway?

How is it comparing "oranges to apples?" We are suppose to be vehicles with the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other vehicle on the road. So if we expect to be treated as any other vehicle on the road we need to act like all other vehicles on the road. I'm not against anyone having fun, but there is a right place and time to do so. And that is NOT on the road.


Why is there always the implication that there is mortal sin involved in being human?

When did I say, or imply that it was a "mortal sin" being human?


Why is there Entertainment Tonight when the skies have stars beyond measure?

I have no idea.


Why AM I asking all these dumb questions?

Again, I have no idea.

So why should cyclists be able to do something that other vehicles on the road cannot do?

Because bicycles are unique vehicles?

It is sometimes legal for a bike to ride on a sidewalk, or in a general "pedestrian-only" area such as a plaza or square. Why can cars not if bikes can? Because bikes are more maneuverable and are able to operate safely at a lower speed.

Not necessarily saying you're wrong on your point in general, just that this logic runs into a brick wall. Bikes are generally accepted as having all the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle (when operated on public roads), but that does not mean that they are motor vehicles, or even that they are always under the same restrictions (example of sidewalk riding case in point).

I hate having to pass a cyclist with earphones.
Then don't pass, otherwise pass as if the cyclist is not wearing headphones. The problem is your own hangup, not the cyclist's.

It makes me wonder if because of those 3 being idiots, if now that driver has a bad taste in his mouth or a negativity for bicycles.

Um, yea, that would be known as human nature.

Antisemitism, racism, sexism, etc. Same thing.

And it goes both ways. Get clipped by a car once, and you'll want blood with every driver who buzzes you thereafter.

in Corvallis, we have bike lanes on both sides of the street. Everyday I see one joker biking in the wrong direction on the wrong side, pissing off cars and other cyclists.

Or even worse, the joker is on a skateboard, which are confined to the sidewalks.

I occasionally do this - when I'm taking my son back and forth to school. I'd rather ride slowly in the bike lane on the wrong side of the street than attempt to cross and re-cross a busy 4 lane road with a 5 year old. We're on the wrong side of the street for maybe half a mile.

OTOH I'm really getting him into bicycling. He's too timid to let me take his training wheels off yet, but he now rides most all the way with his outriggers dangling and only touching down when he turns. :D

Oh yeah - he doesn't ride in the bike lane on the wrong side, he rides on the sidewalk.

Then don't pass, otherwise pass as if the cyclist is not wearing headphones. The problem is your own hangup, not the cyclist's.

I'll just continue to pass with more leeway than normal, and think "what a prick!" when I need it because they swerved directly at me while I was passing them, completely unaware of my existence next to them on the trail. It's worked out for me so far. But I'll also maintain my right to be annoyed at the other cyclist who was too into Michael Jackson to not be a danger on the road (or trail). And you're right, it's clearly not the other cyclist's hangup, as that guy is oblivious to the situation, or the fact that anyone else is on that stretch of pavement.


So why should cyclists be able to do something that other vehicles on the road cannot do?

Physics.

Because bicycles are unique vehicles?

It is sometimes legal for a bike to ride on a sidewalk, or in a general "pedestrian-only" area such as a plaza or square. Why can cars not if bikes can? Because bikes are more maneuverable and are able to operate safely at a lower speed.

Not necessarily saying you're wrong on your point in general, just that this logic runs into a brick wall. Bikes are generally accepted as having all the same rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle (when operated on public roads), but that does not mean that they are motor vehicles, or even that they are always under the same restrictions (example of sidewalk riding case in point).

You will note that I said on the road. Yes, I know that in some areas that riding on the sidewalk is legal, I don't have to agree with it, but it is legal. I also know of a few pedestrian only malls where bikes are not allowed or one has to get off of their bikes and walk them. There is a "mall" of sorts in Downtown St. Pete where even walking a bike is not allowed.

And again I said on the road, not "pedestrian-only" areas, not the sidewalk, but on the road.

You will note that I said on the road. Yes, I know that in some areas that riding on the sidewalk is legal, I don't have to agree with it, but it is legal. I also know of a few pedestrian only malls where bikes are not allowed or one has to get off of their bikes and walk them. There is a "mall" of sorts in Downtown St. Pete where even walking a bike is not allowed.

And again I said on the road, not "pedestrian-only" areas, not the sidewalk, but on the road.
There are 19,783 things in the world more important to worry about than hotdogging on the roads.

And again I said on the road, not "pedestrian-only" areas, not the sidewalk, but on the road.

Even considering, the point still stands that bikes are not always legally treated the same as a motor vehicle. Another good example are the FRAP laws, which explicitly allow/restrict privileges on the road to cyclists not forwarded to motorists. So while bikes are generally treated the same as a motor vehicle in the absence of a specific law, it's not a left-field notion to have them treated differently by the law in certain situations, on and off the road.

Again, not saying your original point was necessarily wrong, only that the logic that "If cars can't, we can't either" doesn't ring true. Bicycles are not cars, and are not always treated the same as cars by the law.

Then don't pass, otherwise pass as if the cyclist is not wearing headphones. The problem is your own hangup, not the cyclist's.

I never pass cars with the windows up and/or a stereo playing. :lol:

I'll just continue to pass with more leeway than normal, and think "what a prick!" when I need it because they swerved directly at me while I was passing them, completely unaware of my existence next to them on the trail. It's worked out for me so far. But I'll also maintain my right to be annoyed at the other cyclist who was too into Michael Jackson to not be a danger on the road (or trail). And you're right, it's clearly not the other cyclist's hangup, as that guy is oblivious to the situation, or the fact that anyone else is on that stretch of pavement.


I've passed far my cyclist who are oblivious to what is going on around them who were not wearing headphones...so I'm pretty sure the headphones are not the problem. :rolleyes:

If you're gonna ride on MUPs you gotta expect the wobblers and the clueless...duh.

So why should cyclists be able to do something that other vehicles on the road cannot do?

Efficiency.

In a city grid, there are many spaces on the roadways not utilized by cars/buses/trolleys/peds. Perfect for bicycles tho.

Then in areas where traffic is already congested, or areas where a slower moving vehicle (garbage truck, horse and buggy, cyclists) will slow down or even anger other road users, it makes so much sense for cyclists to squeeze by traffic or more importantly, not contribute to slowing down moving traffic. So judicious practice of splitting lanes and running red lights when all is clear just makes sense.

Check out my blog (http://joey-bike.blogspot.com/) for a more detailed answer to your question. The very first topic is titled "Bikes Are Not Cars". I also have a short but great collection of links regarding this topic as well.

So that's why we should not have to follow rules for cars. Bikes are not cars.

I've passed far my cyclist who are oblivious to what is going on around them who were not wearing headphones...so I'm pretty sure the headphones are not the problem. :rolleyes:

That proves there can be two kinds of problems, not that people in headphones aren't a problem. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not sure why you and I-Like-To-Bike are so hell bent on debating me into not being annoyed at other peoples' selfishness when it affects me? Every time I see somebody wobbling up ahead, pass the guy with several feet of clearance, only to have him swerve directly at me at the last moment, it's always somebody with headphones. I find that very annoying, whether I have your permission or not, and even if 2-Bike is horrified by my annoyance.


If you're gonna ride on MUPs you gotta expect the wobblers and the clueless...duh.

I expect a bit of cluelessness on the MUP, but that doesn't make it less annoying when my expectations are confirmed.

That proves there can be two kinds of problems, not that people in headphones aren't a problem. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not sure why you and I-Like-To-Bike are so hell bent on debating me into not being annoyed at other peoples' selfishness when it affects me? Every time I see somebody wobbling up ahead, pass the guy with several feet of clearance, only to have him swerve directly at me at the last moment, it's always somebody with headphones. I find that very annoying, whether I have your permission or not, and even if 2-Bike is horrified by my annoyance.

I expect a bit of cluelessness on the MUP, but that doesn't make it less annoying when my expectations are confirmed.

You seem to be surrounded by cluelessness...is there something in the water in Seattle...or are you all descended from these guys?
http://fusionwings.com/JMM/Images/TVSeries/Here%20Come%20the%20Brides/Here%20Come%20the%20Brides.jpg

:D

Bicyclists who give us a bad name?

Fixters...

No brakes, reckless.... I wish NYPD cracked down on them. They're dangerous.

Efficiency.

In a city grid, there are many spaces on the roadways not utilized by cars/buses/trolleys/peds. Perfect for bicycles tho.

Then in areas where traffic is already congested, or areas where a slower moving vehicle (garbage truck, horse and buggy, cyclists) will slow down or even anger other road users, it makes so much sense for cyclists to squeeze by traffic or more importantly, not contribute to slowing down moving traffic. So judicious practice of splitting lanes and running red lights when all is clear just makes sense.

Check out my blog (http://joey-bike.blogspot.com/) for a more detailed answer to your question. The very first topic is titled "Bikes Are Not Cars". I also have a short but great collection of links regarding this topic as well.

So that's why we should not have to follow rules for cars. Bikes are not cars.

Precisely.

There are 19,783 things in the world more important to worry about than hotdogging on the roads.

True, but as I am sure that most of us know things start out as "innocent" hot dogging, or showing off. Someone get's inconvenienced, injured or killed and the next thing you know we have a community petitioning for a change in the law.

A good example would be riding a bike without hands on the handlebars. I am sure that it is safe to say that most of us here can safely ride our bikes for a considerable distance without our hands on the handlebars. But because of those who can't we now have laws in many areas that state that we are to keep at least one hand on the handlebars at all times. Another good example is the MBL law that was recently passed here in Fl. Starting Sept. 1, if there's a bike lane on the road we cyclists will have to use it, unless one or more of several exceptions exist making it too dangerous to use the bike lane.

If one want's to "hot dog" they can do so on their own property or at the local skate park. But hot dogging" out on the public roads is only going to end up causing trouble for everyone.

As I said think about all the various laws that have been written because people lack the maturity to behave in a responsible manner.

Even considering, the point still stands that bikes are not always legally treated the same as a motor vehicle. Another good example are the FRAP laws, which explicitly allow/restrict privileges on the road to cyclists not forwarded to motorists. So while bikes are generally treated the same as a motor vehicle in the absence of a specific law, it's not a left-field notion to have them treated differently by the law in certain situations, on and off the road.

Again, not saying your original point was necessarily wrong, only that the logic that "If cars can't, we can't either" doesn't ring true. Bicycles are not cars, and are not always treated the same as cars by the law.

As I am sure you know though, just because we can do something it doesn't mean that we should do it. And yes, I realize that because of our size, lightness, maneuverability that we do things that a car can do, but by the same token there are things that those in cars can do that we can't. But that doesn't mean that they have the right to do all of those things on the public roads where everyone is suppose to "play" by the same rules.

You seem to be surrounded by cluelessness...is there something in the water in Seattle...or are you all descended from these guys?

I don't know who your friends are. They look like the cast to a 1970s TV show, but I don't watch TV. There are more rewarding things to spend my time on than television, though.

I still don't understand why you're so bothered by the fact that I'm annoyed by rude and slightly dangerous behavior when it affects me. But you'll just have to deal with the fact that these idiots annoy me when they won't ride predictably and also shut out all warning that somebody else is trying to get around them. I don't know how you'll manage to live in a world where I'm annoyed sometimes at people who aren't you ... but I'm sure you'll manage, somehow.

Efficiency.

In a city grid, there are many spaces on the roadways not utilized by cars/buses/trolleys/peds. Perfect for bicycles tho.

Then in areas where traffic is already congested, or areas where a slower moving vehicle (garbage truck, horse and buggy, cyclists) will slow down or even anger other road users, it makes so much sense for cyclists to squeeze by traffic or more importantly, not contribute to slowing down moving traffic. So judicious practice of splitting lanes and running red lights when all is clear just makes sense.

Check out my blog (http://joey-bike.blogspot.com/) for a more detailed answer to your question. The very first topic is titled "Bikes Are Not Cars". I also have a short but great collection of links regarding this topic as well.

So that's why we should not have to follow rules for cars. Bikes are not cars.

Joey,

I've checked out your blog, as well as your videos and you are a bigger menace and danger on the streets than most of the distracted or aggressive motorists that I have to deal with are.

And yes, just as cars, pickups, etc. are able to do things that we cannot do there are things that we can do that they cannot do. But that doesn't mean that when we are out on the public roads that we should "show off" by doing so. Most of the laws that govern the roads are written to level the playing field. So as to make the roads (at least in theory) as safe as possible for all users.

If you cannot see that than I feel sorry for you and your attitude as it is the same sort of attitude that allows motorists to think that they "own" the road and that we cyclists don't belong on the road.

And again Joey don't be surprised when your city government starts cracking down on "scofflaw" cyclists and start imposing more and more restrictions on them.

And yes, I realize that because of our size, lightness, maneuverability that we do things that a car can do, but by the same token there are things that those in cars can do that we can't. But that doesn't mean that they have the right to do all of those things on the public roads where everyone is suppose to "play" by the same rules.

One thing cars can do that we can't, is maintain a speed of 50 or 60 mph going up hill. Now, cars certainly have the right, enshrined in law, to go up hills at high speeds, even on public roads where everyone is supposed to play by the same rules. Bikes using their unique maneuverability isn't that different from cars using their unique speed; obviously it depends on the circumstances.

Cars and bikes aren't so identical that people mistake one for the other. If they were, there would be no such thing as bike advocacy.

Also, I think you're generalizing too much about Florida's mandatory bike lane law; at the same time this was passed, Seattle is enacting a number of road diets. I got the forum some photos the other night of 7th ave, with its new buffered bike lane, which replaces a travel lane. They did a better job of it than most people feared, and at the expense of a car lane.