Advocacy & Safety - I Ride My Bike . . .

I wish I could remember where I got this letter to the editor a few years ago, so I could give credit to the author. Longish but very eloquent and worth the read:

"I ride my bike year-round as my main means of transportation. My bike is not a toy. I don't aspire to be Lance Armstrong. I'm not too poor to afford a car. I choose a bicycle because it’s healthier for me, and healthier for the city I live in. I'm not riding in the middle of the lane to slow you down or thwart you. I'm just trying to do the same thing as you – get from point A to point B safely.

I ride in the middle of the lane if the lane is too narrow to share safely. This is actually a courtesy to you, because you don't have to guess how wide your vehicle is versus how much space is available, and decide if you have to change lanes or not. If the lane next to you is wide open, it really isn't necessary to blast your horn or yell things out your window. Maybe you think there's room for me to be riding in the gutter, but I really have a better view of the pavement there than you do. There's debris there that will flatten my tires, and potholes that can break my bones. If I need to swerve to avoid some garbage someone threw out their car window, I need room to maneuver. It’s not going to make either of our days if we collide.

While we are on the subject of yelling things out the window, your vehicle is loud. Unless we are both stopped at a traffic light, it is unlikely I can make out the words you are saying. Maybe it’s better to focus your attention on not hitting things that are in front of you. I also know where the bike paths are, I have a map. But where I'm going is not on the path.

I put on lights at night so you can see me. I ride in a predictable line so I don't surprise you by my presence. I don't weave between parked cars so I don't startle you when I emerge from behind one. I'm sorry I didn't move over so you could use the three car-length gap between parked cars as your personal passing lane. In an ideal world I would ride far enough away from your car door that it wouldn't matter if you flung it open when I least expected it. But the streets are sometimes very congested and there's not a lot of space available. So please look before you open your door.

While you may fancy yourself a very competent driver, it’s still a good idea to leave at least 3 feet when passing me. While you may not actually brush me when you pass too close, it is still frightening to have thousands of pounds of steel a few inches from one’s shoulder.

Some roads have bicycle lanes painted on them. In an ideal world cyclists and motorists should be able to share the roadway without special lines. But after being honked at one too many times for taking a narrow lane, or buzzed too close by attempting to share one, bike lanes become a place of refuge. Please try to have some respect for this refuge by finding a different spot to park your car when you want to run into Starbucks, and definitely do not think of this space as the way to get around a left-turning vehicle.

Remember that the bike lane is there when you want to turn right and that there might be a cyclist in it. The lanes are dotted near intersections for a reason; you should merge into this lane when you want to turn right. Note that merge does not mean cut off. You aren't doing me a favor by waiting to turn right while leaving the bike lane open. I will never pass you on the right when you are signaling right, as I have no idea if you see me or not. If you merge, I have room to pass you on the left in your lane of traffic to go straight while you wait for pedestrians crossing, etc. If you don’t merge, there’s no room for me to go around easily.

Remember those hand turn signals from the driver’s education handbook? I try to use them as much as possible to let you know what I'm going to do. While it might seem redundant to signal a stop when approaching a four-way stop, I know that not all people on bicycles stop. The signal is a courtesy to you, so you know that you can proceed because I will stop. Sometimes I need my hands on my bike but you should be able to infer from my lane position what I am going to do. If I am in the left lane of the road it means I am going to turn left. I'm not there to enjoy the scenery. If you want to turn left as well, this means you should wait behind me. Trying to turn left from the right side of the roadway is only going to put us both in conflict.

I try to make my best guesses what you might do next from your lane position. You can help reduce the guesswork. While it may seem that the turn signal has gone out of fashion, I really do appreciate when you use it in advance. This helps me anticipate what you intend to do, so we don’t have any conflict.

The world will not end if you cannot make a right turn on a red light. If there was a car in front of you, would you honk because you wanted to make a right turn? Because I am small enough to move over to let you do so does not always mean it is safe to do so. If it is safe, and I see you signalling behind me, I will move over and let you go by. Please do not try to squeeze between me in the middle of the lane and the car in the next lane when there clearly is not enough space. Repeatedly leaning on the horn will only get on both of our nerves.

While you may think a bicycle is too slow to be practical for transportation, I can move faster than you might think. While you were so anxious to pass me, perhaps you didn't notice that I have caught up with you again at the next red light. It isn't a race from red light to red light, so if you need to slow down for a few seconds it isn't the end of the world. Think how much more I would slow you down if I was a full-width car trying to make a left turn onto a side street in busy traffic. If you cannot judge how fast I am moving please err on the side of caution when turning left in front of me, or pulling out of your parking spot.

I appreciate your kind attempts to let me have the right-of-way when it is not mine. But please refrain. If you stop unexpectedly, the driver behind you might get surprised and rear-end you.

Just as there are motor vehicle drivers deficient in common sense, there are people riding bikes without common sense as well. I don't happen to know the Joe Clueless you saw riding a bike down the center of a busy one-way arterial in the wrong direction snarling traffic. Please do not assume I'm going to behave like Joe. Or take your anger at Joe out on me by honking or yelling at me from the other side of the road, where I cannot possibly be in your way. Also be glad Joe was not driving a car where he would be a real danger to everyone.

I am very aware of my surroundings when I am on a bicycle. I can hear when you are behind me by the sound of your engine and tires. You don't need to toot to let me know you are there. I'm never sure whether you are trying to let me know you are there, trying to say hello to me, wanting me to move, or whether you are just angry.

Please treat me with the same respect you would treat any other road user. But I would add an extra caveat. Please recognize that cyclists are more vulnerable road users. Before you wish them off the road, remember they are helping to ease traffic congestion, improving air quality, fighting the obesity epidemic, and reducing our dependence on nations who encourage terrorism. When in doubt as to who should go next, let the more vulnerable road user proceed. And keep in mind that leaving space always helps road safety, whether it’s an extra foot when passing a cyclist, or an extra few feet following the car in front of you. When we work cooperatively on the roads rather than engaging in a mad competition, we can all get where we are going just a little less stressfully.

Thanks. And thank you to the motorists that already get it. Thank you for waiting before opening your door. Thank you for leaving a safe amount of space when passing. Thank you for waiting patiently behind when it was not safe to pass. Thank you for signalling. Thank you for respecting the speed limit which makes the roads just a little bit saner to be traveling on. Thank you for slowing to let me in when I stuck out my arm because I wanted to move into the left turn lane. Thank you for not using your horn when it was not necessary. Thank you for all the little ways that you cooperate."

Wow, outstanding. I think I may just print this and keep a few copies in my pannier.

+ a bazillion to the writer.

(as a gentle aside... a few slight grammatical errors... but what the heck)

I remember seeing this before I don't remember where though. It is awesome, I feel that it should be printed annually in the local paper.

I found out where I had seen it before:
http://crazybikerchick.blogspot.com/2006/09/things-non-cyclist-might-not.html

I don't know if she wrote it or not, but that is where I had seen it before.

:thumb:

With a touch of formatting, I managed to fit it into a single page, front and back. Well worth printing and carrying... perhaps to leave on a windshield or two...

Very very good. My only sadness is that most cycling forum types are already there and really appreciate this, when it is some drivers who need to read it. Perhaps genec is on the right track about having this handy to give out... In any case it is always nice to see a reasonably balanced rant about such things rather than a completely unproductive diatribe against motorists.

With a touch of formatting, I managed to fit it into a single page, front and back. Well worth printing and carrying... perhaps to leave on a windshield or two...

Not a bad idea. Like RANTWICK, I really appreciate the positive tone.

Very well written. It's preaching to the choir here, but maybe somebody can hack into DMV's computer system and have this printed in the driver manual people study for their license from? ( Nevermind - people don't study for those. )

Maybe the other thing to do is send this to your local paper editorial page... or better yet... any way to make it go viral on the 'net?

With a touch of formatting, I managed to fit it into a single page, front and back. Well worth printing and carrying... perhaps to leave on a windshield or two...

I am an idiot, could you or would you please show/tell me how to do this.

I am an idiot, could you or would you please show/tell me how to do this.

http://www.mikeshoup.com/docs/Bike%20Letter.pdf

Cheers :beer:

If you need it front and back, see if your printer has a duplex option. Or, just insert one page into the printer, print the first page. Flip it over, and print the second page.

Alternatively, with Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can tell it to print multiple sheets on one page....

http://www.mikeshoup.com/docs/Bike%20Letter.pdf

Cheers :beer:

If you need it front and back, see if your printer has a duplex option. Or, just insert one page into the printer, print the first page. Flip it over, and print the second page.

Alternatively, with Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can tell it to print multiple sheets on one page....

Thank you, I'm planning on seeing if I can get the local paper to print this in the spring, just prior to Ride to Work Day, or permaybehaps before the Ride of Silence day.

Very nice but why the Lance Armstrong reference?

Very nice but why the Lance Armstrong reference?

Because some people think that all cyclists are simply out "practicing" for some sporting event... rather than merely transporting themselves from point A to B.

Some drivers for instance object to all those "athletes" using "their road" for "exercise" while the driver is just trying to "get to work." (never mind the guy in the RV that is also "just having fun..."

Very nice but why the Lance Armstrong reference?

I'm not the author, but my guess is that (s)he is riding not for competitive, training, or recreational purposes, but to get from "point A to point B" just like everybody else. The road is not there for the cyclist's exclusive enjoyment, like a time-trial course for elite racers on the Tour de France, but must be shared by all users.

I am an idiot, could you or would you please show/tell me how to do this.

First you start with a printer that does two sided printing... then...

;) OK, if you don't have such a printer, break the document up into two different documents... print one side, then flip these over and print the other side as the second document.

I happen to have a "fancy" printer/scanner/fax that does it all. They really are nice for a small home office.

But in case the question you have is not how to do front and back... but the "formatting" issue. I simply changed the size of the margins on the top, bottom and sides so that the text all fit into two pages.

To get the text, I simply highlighted it and Control-C copied it to Word... ran spell check, fixed a few other small errors, selected the font and size I wanted and then played with the margins (see File > page layout) to get it all to fit on 2 pages, then printed it front and back on one sheet of paper. If you need more help than that... sent me a message and I can give you more details.

Because some people think that all cyclists are simply out "practicing" for some sporting event... rather than merely transporting themselves from point A to B.

Some drivers for instance object to all those "athletes" using "their road" for "exercise" while the driver is just trying to "get to work." (never mind the guy in the RV that is also "just having fun..."

I know. It's sort of like how all these Dale Earnhardt wannabes practice for their 15 minutes of fame, every week day around 5 pm. Very annoying.

I guess I would just like to see a discussion a cycling on the roads that doesn't involve Lance Armstrong/TdF references.

I know. It's sort of like how all these Dale Earnhardt wannabes practice for their 15 minutes of fame, every week day around 5 pm. Very annoying.

:roflmao2:

I like that. I'll have to print it out myself to carry with me. It was well written, and makes a LOT of sense.

Wow, outstanding. I think I may just print this and keep a few copies in my pannier.

+ a bazillion to the writer.

(as a gentle aside... a few slight grammatical errors... but what the heck)

Genec,

I agree with you, this is something we should all print out and carry in our panniers so that we can hand it out to both motorists and cyclists alike.

Very nice but why the Lance Armstrong reference?

Because there's been a visible increase in riders on the roads since LA showed up as TDF winner in '99, and all the ignorant driving masses out there think we're riding cuz we wanna BE him -- they're not capable of thinking any deeper.


I guess I would just like to see a discussion a cycling on the roads that doesn't involve Lance Armstrong/TdF references.

So would I, but as long as drivers use him as the archetype of the modern cyclist, we're stuck with it. (I wonder what they'd think if guys like Freddie Hoffman got more publicity? For those that don't know, Freddie was born 'special', slightly oxygen-deprived, so he has a learning disability; he discovered that riding was something he could do as well as anyone, and has never looked back. The story I read about him several years ago reported that he'd logged somewhere around half a million miles in his lifetime! Rides an old steel frame tourer, wears sweats, uses toe clips, etc. Freddie started his solo odyssey before LA was even BORN!)

it's funny, but I think , what's wrong with aspiring to be lance armstrong? Especially when obesity is an epidemic and kids are being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, there are worse things than aspiring to be lance, lol.

So would I, but as long as drivers use him as the archetype of the modern cyclist, we're stuck with it. (I wonder what they'd think if guys like Freddie Hoffman got more publicity? For those that don't know, Freddie was born 'special', slightly oxygen-deprived, so he has a learning disability; he discovered that riding was something he could do as well as anyone, and has never looked back. The story I read about him several years ago reported that he'd logged somewhere around half a million miles in his lifetime! Rides an old steel frame tourer, wears sweats, uses toe clips, etc. Freddie started his solo odyssey before LA was even BORN!)

Wow! Actually, if Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Hoffman) is to be believed, he's ridden 1.4 million miles, more than two round trips to the moon. Neat.

I love this article...

I know. It's sort of like how all these Dale Earnhardt wannabes practice for their 15 minutes of fame, every week day around 5 pm. Very annoying.

Actually the guy I find most annoying is the idiot that lives in the canyon below me... also apparently a "Dale Earnhardt wannabe," who drives a modified older Mustang with an incredibly loud exhaust system and starts up at 5:30 AM every damn morning... apparently leaving for work... and drives fast and LOUD down the road. You can almost set a clock by his start time every AM.... but you don't need too... his loud exhaust "system" is enough to wake the dead.... why bother with an alarm clock! Friggin' jerk!

genec, I'll trade ya -- I'll take Mustang Boy @ 5AM, you can have the parade of gangsta's thumping by @ 230AM.... Some of these ****s, you can hear a half-mile away in rolling terrain! Every bass-thumping fool that drives by gets a high-waving bird, though most don't see it.... So f'n rude, some (friends of my niece & nephew) will sit in my driveway with that **** going, and my sister and her hubby have pleaded with me to stop raising hell about it, cuz they're afraid some thug will set fire to the house some night.....

They're lucky I don't have access to grenades & such anymore, being discharged and all...........(just BARELY kidding....)

genec, I'll trade ya -- I'll take Mustang Boy @ 5AM, you can have the parade of gangsta's thumping by @ 230AM.... Some of these ****s, you can hear a half-mile away in rolling terrain! Every bass-thumping fool that drives by gets a high-waving bird, though most don't see it.... So f'n rude, some (friends of my niece & nephew) will sit in my driveway with that sh** going, and my sister and her hubby have pleaded with me to stop raising hell about it, cuz they're afraid some thug will set fire to the house some night.....

They're lucky I don't have access to grenades & such anymore, being discharged and all...........(just BARELY kidding....)

DM,

I've gotta agree with you. Sometimes a nice LAW or claymore would come in handy. Imagine the look on the face of drivers if they saw a cyclist with a pair of laws strapped to the sides of their bike?

I thought the letter was excellent. However, I am not thrilled by the perceived need to defend a bike as a means of transportation. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the driving done in this country does not appear to be for the purpose of getting to/from work. Driving out to get booze/cigarettes is recreational driving, as is driving to social events and to the gym. A cyclist who uses his bike for transportation may also ride recreationally as conditioning. However, unlike recreational car use, recreational cycling serves a legitimate transportation purpose: a fitter cyclist has more range and can ride faster which is usually safer.

Of course, all of that should be irrelevant. The roads are our public space and we are all allowed to use them for any legal purpose without anyone else's approval. I just wish more motorists would use the roads in a lawful manner.

Very very good. My only sadness is that most cycling forum types are already there and really appreciate this, when it is some drivers who need to read it. Perhaps genec is on the right track about having this handy to give out... In any case it is always nice to see a reasonably balanced rant about such things rather than a completely unproductive diatribe against motorists.

Who let you in here? ;)

I emailed the writer to ask permission to post it on my own blog; I think it's worth keeping it around in the public consciousness.


(For the rest of you who are not familiar with RANTWICK, check out his blog; it is one of the best going.)

I thought the letter was excellent. However, I am not thrilled by the perceived need to defend a bike as a means of transportation. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the driving done in this country does not appear to be for the purpose of getting to/from work. Driving out to get booze/cigarettes is recreational driving, as is driving to social events and to the gym. A cyclist who uses his bike for transportation may also ride recreationally as conditioning. However, unlike recreational car use, recreational cycling serves a legitimate transportation purpose: a fitter cyclist has more range and can ride faster which is usually safer.

Of course, all of that should be irrelevant. The roads are our public space and we are all allowed to use them for any legal purpose without anyone else's approval. I just wish more motorists would use the roads in a lawful manner.

Good point, why is it that out of all of the various road users do we cyclists have to "justify" our using something that our taxes helped to pay for? And as has been pointed out when one takes into account property tax, sales tax, income tax we cyclists actually pay more then our fair share for the upkeep of the road compared to he "damage" that we do to the road.

Let's look at a "common" situation. A person is out driving their car and gets a flat tire, but they continue to drive to the nearest gas station to get it fixed. How much damage are they going to do to the road vs. someone on a bike with a flat tire who continues to ride down the road? Isn't the cyclist going to do more damage to their own wheel(s) then they are to the road? Plus as has been said the more cyclists and pedestrians that we have out there on the road the fewer cars we have belching out pollution as well as fewer cars causing traffic jams. So it's really better for everyone, yet some people just can't or won't see that.

Awhile back (I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned this before) while I was packing up getting ready to leave the library. I actually had a woman tell me that bikes belonged on the sidewalk instead of the road because people driving cars are trying to take stuff from point a to point b. Even after I explained to her that most of us on bikes are trying to do the same thing. I even tried to explain to her that for most of us it isn't difficult for us to maintain a speed between 15 - 20 MPH. And that given that we can carry a couple of hundred pounds of cargo.

As well as trying to explain to her that at that weight and speed that we can do as much damage to a pedestrian as a car. Sadly, I still don't think that she got it. She also tried to use the "we cyclists" don't "pay our fair share" of the costs to use the roads. I wonder what her reaction was to the two people riding double on a bicycle that caused the death in Clearwater over the 4th of July holiday?

Also why is it assumed that just because we're on a bike that we're out for a "Sunday ride" instead of doing something serious? Yes, a lot of us do ride for fun but as you said even when we do it makes us more efficient cyclists when we're riding to get from point a to point b. How many motorists can say that all or most of their trips are needed? And aren't "Sunday rides?"

... (For the rest of you who are not familiar with RANTWICK, check out his blog; it is one of the best going.)

Doohickie, you are one nice dude. Thanks.

Good point, why is it that out of all of the various road users do we cyclists have to "justify" our using something that our taxes helped to pay for? And as has been pointed out when one takes into account property tax, sales tax, income tax we cyclists actually pay more then our fair share for the upkeep of the road compared to he "damage" that we do to the road.

Let's look at a "common" situation. A person is out driving their car and gets a flat tire, but they continue to drive to the nearest gas station to get it fixed. How much damage are they going to do to the road vs. someone on a bike with a flat tire who continues to ride down the road? Isn't the cyclist going to do more damage to their own wheel(s) then they are to the road? Plus as has been said the more cyclists and pedestrians that we have out there on the road the fewer cars we have belching out pollution as well as fewer cars causing traffic jams. So it's really better for everyone, yet some people just can't or won't see that.

Awhile back (I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned this before) while I was packing up getting ready to leave the library. I actually had a woman tell me that bikes belonged on the sidewalk instead of the road because people driving cars are trying to take stuff from point a to point b. Even after I explained to her that most of us on bikes are trying to do the same thing. I even tried to explain to her that for most of us it isn't difficult for us to maintain a speed between 15 - 20 MPH. And that given that we can carry a couple of hundred pounds of cargo.

As well as trying to explain to her that at that weight and speed that we can do as much damage to a pedestrian as a car. Sadly, I still don't think that she got it. She also tried to use the "we cyclists" don't "pay our fair share" of the costs to use the roads. I wonder what her reaction was to the two people riding double on a bicycle that caused the death in Clearwater over the 4th of July holiday?

Also why is it assumed that just because we're on a bike that we're out for a "Sunday ride" instead of doing something serious? Yes, a lot of us do ride for fun but as you said even when we do it makes us more efficient cyclists when we're riding to get from point a to point b. How many motorists can say that all or most of their trips are needed? And aren't "Sunday rides?"

Because a lot of people on bikes ride and act as if they are out on Sunday rides any time they are on a bike... and most the non regular cycling public only rides bikes for recreation, so they have a very difficult time relating to bikes as transportation. Remember, for most Americans, bikes are toys that gather dust in the garage.

Even some folks we would consider "cyclists" may not use their bikes for transportation... perhaps putting their bikes on top of their cars to go somewhere to ride.

I can't help but wonder how Lance gets to "work" each day...

Good point, why is it that out of all of the various road users do we cyclists have to "justify" our using something that our taxes helped to pay for?Because 1) they feel that we get away with murder when we roll through stop signs (as do they, but that's OK -- they slowed way down, after all, even if we both go through at 10 mph), 2) they don't like being behind us anyways (we're slowing them down!), and 3) because they're more of them than us.

Ultimately, that really only comes out because 1) they don't want bikes on the road for whatever reason, and 2) they don't want taxes spent on anything that benefits somebody other than them.


And as has been pointed out when one takes into account property tax, sales tax, income tax we cyclists actually pay more then our fair share for the upkeep of the road compared to he "damage" that we do to the road.When you tell a "bikes are toys that don't belong on the road" motorist that, they just roll their eyes.

Though that position is not entirely fair either. The roads weren't free to make -- it's not just cost of upkeep that needs to be paid, but cost to build it in the first place. And second, while bikes don't do much damage, neither do cars -- it's big trucks that do the biggest damage. (The exact ratio is hard to pin down, but this site (http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm) claims that "One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962)." And third, much of the damage to the road doesn't come from vehicles at all -- it comes from weather, erosion and other natural causes, and if you're going to divvy up that damage between the users of the road, you should divvy it up between all the users of the road, and that includes bicycles.

Looking merely at "cost of upkeep due to damage caused our vehicle" only looks at part of the picture. Still, considering that gasoline taxes generally only pay for major highways that cyclists rarely use anyways, and property and sales taxes are what do pay for the roads they use, the "you don't pay taxes" argument has no weight whatsoever. (And really, if it did have any truth to it and actually meant something, the next logical step would be that the poor don't get to use the roads either.)


Let's look at a "common" situation. A person is out driving their car and gets a flat tire, but they continue to drive to the nearest gas station to get it fixed.That's pretty rare. Doing so ruins their tire and rims too, so they don't do that often. Being rare, it's a weak argument in this context.


belching out pollutionIf you're looking at the cost of maintaining the roads, "belching out pollution" doesn't fit into that. That's more of a cost to society, one that is rarely counted and one that is remarkably unconvincing to motorists. It's a weak argument in the context of who pays for the roads.


How many motorists can say that all or most of their trips are needed? And aren't "Sunday rides?"It's another weak argument. However, considering that this argument doesn't come out unless they've already decided that they don't want bikes on the roads, attacking this argument is a waste of time.

Even some folks we would consider "cyclists" may not use their bikes for transportation... perhaps putting their bikes on top of their cars to go somewhere to ride.

I can't help but wonder how Lance gets to "work" each day...

Pro cyclists aside, I think there are a lot of motorists who ride a bicycle here. I never understand why they drive around with the bikes in a rack all day in my tourist city. That could explain the defense of the cage by some that post here.

Pro cyclists aside, I think there are a lot of motorists who ride a bicycle here. I never understand why they drive around with the bikes in a rack all day in my tourist city. That could explain the defense of the cage by some that post here.

Riding a bike is one thing... using a bike for transportation is the other... That was the point I was trying to make... for a lot of folks a bike IS a toy... and they have a hard time relating to a bike as transportation... the rack on the car is where they keep the toy.

Because a lot of people on bikes ride and act as if they are out on Sunday rides any time they are on a bike... and most the non regular cycling public only rides bikes for recreation, so they have a very difficult time relating to bikes as transportation. Remember, for most Americans, bikes are toys that gather dust in the garage.

Even some folks we would consider "cyclists" may not use their bikes for transportation... perhaps putting their bikes on top of their cars to go somewhere to ride.

I can't help but wonder how Lance gets to "work" each day...

You make some very good points, and that's a good question about Lance.

Because 1) they feel that we get away with murder when we roll through stop signs (as do they, but that's OK -- they slowed way down, after all, even if we both go through at 10 mph), 2) they don't like being behind us anyways (we're slowing them down!), and 3) because they're more of them than us.

1) Yep, it's amazing how it's okay for them to speed, run stop lights/signs, etc. but let someone else do it and all hell breaks loose. 2) Yep, anything that "slows" them down even a fraction of a second is intolerable. 3) That's the truth.


Ultimately, that really only comes out because 1) they don't want bikes on the road for whatever reason, and 2) they don't want taxes spent on anything that benefits somebody other than them.

You're probably right about both.


When you tell a "bikes are toys that don't belong on the road" motorist that, they just roll their eyes.

Yep, you'd have more luck talking to a brick wall. I think that that is the mindset of the woman I had a conversation with outside of the library about a year or so ago. She was steadfast in her belief that cyclists "belonged" on the sidewalks and not in the streets with cars, because people who drive cars are transporting things from one point to another.

I guess each week when I go grocery shopping on my bike pulling my Yakima Big Tow trailer and about a hundred dollars worth of grocery's that I'm "out for a Sunday ride." And that I'm not transporting things from point to another.


Though that position is not entirely fair either. The roads weren't free to make -- it's not just cost of upkeep that needs to be paid, but cost to build it in the first place. And second, while bikes don't do much damage, neither do cars -- it's big trucks that do the biggest damage. (The exact ratio is hard to pin down, but this site (http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm) claims that "One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962)." And third, much of the damage to the road doesn't come from vehicles at all -- it comes from weather, erosion and other natural causes, and if you're going to divvy up that damage between the users of the road, you should divvy it up between all the users of the road, and that includes bicycles.

True, but cars do cause even more damage then do bicycles. And weather also causes it's "fair share" of damage to our roadways.


Looking merely at "cost of upkeep due to damage caused our vehicle" only looks at part of the picture. Still, considering that gasoline taxes generally only pay for major highways that cyclists rarely use anyways, and property and sales taxes are what do pay for the roads they use, the "you don't pay taxes" argument has no weight whatsoever. (And really, if it did have any truth to it and actually meant something, the next logical step would be that the poor don't get to use the roads either.)

Exactly, and if we could only convince the person in the second thread about that Toronto Mayor candidate that gas taxes, license and registration fees only pay a small percentage of the costs for the local or surface roads vs. the major highways.


That's pretty rare. Doing so ruins their tire and rims too, so they don't do that often. Being rare, it's a weak argument in this context.

True, but it does still happen. Granted it may be few and far between but we do know that it does happen.


If you're looking at the cost of maintaining the roads, "belching out pollution" doesn't fit into that. That's more of a cost to society, one that is rarely counted and one that is remarkably unconvincing to motorists. It's a weak argument in the context of who pays for the roads.

Granted, but it's still a part of the overall cost of the road systems.


It's another weak argument. However, considering that this argument doesn't come out unless they've already decided that they don't want bikes on the roads, attacking this argument is a waste of time.

That may be, but I would imagine that more of their trips are for pleasure then our trips on a bicycle are.

That may be, but I would imagine that more of their trips are for pleasure then our trips on a bicycle are.On a numerical basis, considering that there's 100x (made up figure!) more cars on the road than bikes, sure.

On a percentage basis, I'd say no -- lots of cyclists go for a ride just to go for a ride or for training (I'll lump training rides in with pleasure rides -- the motorists certainly do when they make this argument) and while some drivers drive for fun, it's a smaller percentage of total car trips. Even if we include trips to the the bar or your girlfriend's place as "fun" trips, I'd still say that cyclists ride strictly for fun/exercise far more than drivers drive for fun.

Of course, this doesn't matter one bit -- the law says nothing about trips to the store being more important than trips just for the sake of taking trips. It's just another weak argument brought up by somebody who can't come up with something better.

Pro cyclists aside, I think there are a lot of motorists who ride a bicycle here. I never understand why they drive around with the bikes in a rack all day in my tourist city. That could explain the defense of the cage by some that post here.

And how many of those bikes end up getting damaged because the driver forgets that there is a bike up on top of the car and drive into the garage or through low hanging branches? And as you asked what is the logic of driving just a mile or two down the road to ride through the park?

Wouldn't it make more sense to ride to the park, then ride through the park and then ride home again?

Wouldn't it make more sense to ride to the park, then ride through the park and then ride home again?Yes, and I think that most people who are motorists and cyclists (which I would say includes most adult cyclists here in the US) would do exactly that in that situation, when the park is only a mile or two away, especially if it's an easy one or two miles to ride. It is a pain in the butt to load the bike into the car, after all.

However, if the park is fifteen miles away, and it's not a park that they're riding in but a serious hammer fest race that's going to kick their butt even without thirty extra miles, then they may want to drive to the ride. Or if the park is the only place they feel safe riding, they may want to drive there.

These people are cyclists. They know the joy and other benefits of riding their bike already (or they wouldn't be doing it), and probably have made an informed decision about whether to ride or drive to the start of their ride.

On a numerical basis, considering that there's 100x (made up figure!) more cars on the road than bikes, sure.

Agreed


On a percentage basis, I'd say no -- lots of cyclists go for a ride just to go for a ride or for training (I'll lump training rides in with pleasure rides -- the motorists certainly do when they make this argument) and while some drivers drive for fun, it's a smaller percentage of total car trips. Even if we include trips to the the bar or your girlfriend's place as "fun" trips, I'd still say that cyclists ride strictly for fun/exercise far more than drivers drive for fun.

You're probably right, but one could say that one's trip to one's girl/boyfriend's for "fun" is also a form of "exercise." ;)


Of course, this doesn't matter one bit -- the law says nothing about trips to the store being more important than trips just for the sake of taking trips. It's just another weak argument brought up by somebody who can't come up with something better.


You're right about that, as evidenced by the woman who tried to argue that people driving cars are transporting things from one point to another and that those of us on bikes are somehow "interfering" with that. :(

Yes, and I think that most people who are motorists and cyclists (which I would say includes most adult cyclists here in the US) would do exactly that in that situation, when the park is only a mile or two away, especially if it's an easy one or two miles to ride. It is a pain in the butt to load the bike into the car, after all.

Yep, I can see that even with a rack mounted either on back or top of a car it can be a pain in the butt to load a bike or two or three into/on a car.


However, if the park is fifteen miles away, and it's not a park that they're riding in but a serious hammer fest race that's going to kick their butt even without thirty extra miles, then they may want to drive to the ride. Or if the park is the only place they feel safe riding, they may want to drive there.

I can sort of see how that would be a problem for some folks. Although one way to look at the "extra" thirty mile ride would be as a pre-race warm up, and post-race cool down. And I agree that we all have our different comfort levels for where we will ride.

As a good example I think nothing of riding across the Gandy Bridge between Tampa and St. Pete but I know that there are plenty of people who without the Friendship trail wouldn't think of taking the Gandy Bridge. Likewise I have no problems in riding 49th St. N. and the Bayside Bridge over to Tampa. Again I know that there are plenty of people who do everything in their power to avoid both.


These people are cyclists. They know the joy and other benefits of riding their bike already (or they wouldn't be doing it), and probably have made an informed decision about whether to ride or drive to the start of their ride.

This is true.