Commuting - Drivers opinions of Cyclists

Hi all, I am on a car mailing list and a discussion has come up this week about cyclists because one of the guys on the list was hit by a car on his bicycle. The following is what one of the guys had to say about the situation. I thought you guys might be interested in reading this:

"We see a lot of traffic signs around here about bicycle riders on the road,
etc., but they will never do any good as long as folks on bicycles ride in the
middle of a traffic lane, sometimes two abreast, at speeds from 15 to 50 mph
below the posted speed limit. Given the number of vehicles on the road at
times, bicycle speeds are not compatible with traffic speeds on most county roads
and highways, and in many cases even on city streets.

You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc.

People can talk about their "rights" all day, but as with many things,
attempting to enforce these rights with aggressive behaviors can have consequences.
The probable result of Steve White's grabbing a driver by the throat through
an open vehicle window in KY would result in a fatal shooting by driver who
was attacked in his vehicle (his private domain) while carrying a licensed
firearm, and while I don't give legal opinions on anything, one would certainly
expect a "justifiable homicide by self defense" plea if he were even to have been
prosecuted. My suggestion in circumstances like that is to just either learn
to take it, adjust your travel patterns, or advise law enforcement. Violence
on the street only begets escalating violence, and the "rednecks", as some
have referred to them, in their pickup trucks are generally far better armed and
ready to defend themselves than bicycle riders.

The real solution to the problem is licensing and taxation of bicycles, (in
most jurisdictions bicycles do not pay for license plates and they certainly do
not pay gasoline taxes to contribute to road construction and maintenance)
just as is done with automobiles, with these funds utilized to construct bike
trails on the side of the highways to segregate bicycle traffic from real
traffic. I remember a traffic engineering course many years ago where they taught
that the way to set speed limits was to set out a traffic speed sensing device
and to set the speed limit between the 80th and 90th percentile of the traffic
speeds of the drivers. No politics, green or otherwise back then (which
probably ages me some), just simple engineering and safety.

One final point. While many bicycle riders seem to think that automobile
drivers are "out to get them" (Could this be a result of their own recognition of
the adverse effects upon traffic flow of their conveyances and the
frustration that they cause among automobile and truck operators?) when in fact they are
just difficult to see in many ambient conditions. I remember, once again many
years ago, taking a motorcycle safety course where they emphasized utilizing
a head/tail light at all times to increase visibility. Motorcycles have far
better lighting than most bicycles, and they also move at speeds consistent with
surrounding traffic, yet there are many car/truck-motorcycle accidents due to
their limited visibility. The dangers to bicycles are exponentially
increased in comparison to these motorcycles. Sometimes, despite what the bicycle
riders think, it is just a visibility problem and not the malice that is inferred.

The best solution, although perhaps not to the bicyclists liking, is for them
to stay out of rush hour or moderate and high speed traffic, stay as far to
the right as possible, utilizing road shoulders when possible, pull over and
stop when automotive traffic is building up behind you, ride in single file
only, and perhaps confine your rides to "bike paths" until your taxes can build
more suitable facilities for your use.

These practical solutions recognize several factors. First of all, you will
NEVER WIN in a collision with an automobile, pickup truck or 18-wheeler. That
is a simple application of the laws of physics and of nature. You can demand
rights, talk about your freedoms, complain until the cows come home, etc.,
but you do need to recognize that the driver of the average 3/4 ton pickup truck
may not even notice hitting you if he clips you with his rear end due to the
protective values of automotive structure. Secondly, committing assaultive
crimes against drivers for perceived insults and infractions can result in your
arrest at best, and serious injury from an altercation with an individual
exercising his rights of self-defense against your aggression if you are less
fortunate. Just because you may consider your cause to be just doesn't mean that
you will win in practical applications. Staying off of the highways and out of
the way of automotive traffic may be the most effective way of preventing
injury or death while cycling."

p.s. I am working on a rebuttal and could use some help....boss expects me to work today :(

I think the problem really is we, as a species, tend to clump our selves in to certain groups (in this case car users vs. cyclists) and once that's done you will find @$$--les in either group that suddenly represent you. I'm sure there are bad motorists out there and I know there are bad cyclists out there but where do the decent ones meet to change the problems?

I'm so sick of the mentality that drivers have a "right" to pass all traffic that is slower than they are. These "car-rights" idiots make up justifications about losing time or productivity because cyclists are on the road.

Really, I drive 400+ miles a week for work (I hate it too). I go through highways, 2-lane blacktop, urban and residential areas. I encounter cyclists frequently.

How much time have I lost, TOTAL, in a year because of cyclists? Perhaps 5 minutes. How much time do I lose per day because of too many cars? About 1 hour.

If drivers want to help themselves and make their lives easier, they should focus on encouraging public transportation and things like lexus lanes.

OK, here is something that I have been told by a local cop and a judge in the area. A vehicle has to follow the rules of the road to safely pass slower traffic. If I want to ride my bike in the middle of Main Street at 5mph, since there isn't a posted speed minimum, I have the right to ride at 5mph.

The speed limit is just that, A LIMIT. It is the MAXIMUM speed allowed on that part of the road. If a road wants to keep slow bikes off the road then they need to post speed minimums and enforce it on bikes, cars, trucks, mopeds, scooters, joggers, ect...

I wish all the cars I encounter while driving were as easy to pass as bicycles are.

Paul

Forcing cyclists to pay taxes for road building is ridiculous. if more people biked we would have no need of new roads.
Restricting bikes to paths does not solve the problem of teaching drivers to be aware of and courteous to cyclists.
Most cyclists (that do not have a death wish) do obey traffic laws including riding as far to the right as is safe and practical.
Most of us are trying to get to work at the same time as auto drivers. Banning cyclists from roads during rush hour only promotes our car infatuated culture. Drivers should face the fact we have the same road rights they do.

Personally, I'm getting sick of the whole taxation issue for cyclists. I would venture to guess that at least 90 percent of cyclists also own a car (or more than one car) and therefore pay their share of road taxes. Taxing a bike would amount to double taxation. Stupid issue.

"You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc."
-----------------
The few seconds a car has to slow down to pass me hardly slows down traffic. And, if I jump in my car and add another one to the road traffic will slow down even more.

If cars want us off the roads they use then build bike lanes or bike paths beside the roads. Otherwise until the laws change I will continue to exercise my right and ride a bike.

One more thing, you drivers are all welcome on how I am not harming the environment by pumping more exaust fumes into the air from my SUV. (in fact I don't own an SUV).

As I read somewhere in the forum "burn fat not oil".

this is quite disturbing - the fact that idiots like the guy that wrote the above pile of cr@p are controlling two tons of metal behind me-its just the same old one sided arguments everytime but it is helpful to be reminded of the way people are thinking- bikes have no right to delay me (what about the cars that delay me everyday)- bikes dont pay taxes (as if bike riders all have some magical diplomatic tax exempt status)- bikes are just REALLY hard to see (well they would be if you dont bother looking and I dont seem to have any problem)-my car is bigger than your bike so just get off the road (well I suppose he's right there) -blah-blah

I think I'll just jack the cycling thing in and pour my increasingly fat ass into a car everyday until I die of a heart attack pounding the steering wheel in a traffic jam- it looks like so much fun NOT

I remember a traffic engineering course many years ago where they taught
that the way to set speed limits was to set out a traffic speed sensing device
and to set the speed limit between the 80th and 90th percentile of the traffic
speeds of the drivers. No politics, green or otherwise back then (which
probably ages me some), just simple engineering and safety.

I see, so we ask motorists how fast they'd like to go on a piece of road and then set the limit just below that. Shame we can't set saleries the same way :)

I fear that you're wasting your time with the rebuttal as the subtext here is "Nothing should obstruct me from doing what I what to in my car."

Besides, his point of view about the fact that we take up lanes... how often does that REALLY happen? I don't know about you, but I usually take the lane only in certain situations and @ certain dangerous street corners. That makes me very visible to the drivers, and I clearly signal my intentions.

I also didn't like his point about taxation, and the fact that we don't buy oil to contribute to the road maintenance. Well, most road maintenance are needed BECAUSE of cars and trucks. I have a bike path that has been built over 20 years ago here, and it has NEVER needed repairs/shows NO sign of wear. How happy would the govt be if they could build roads and never repair them for 40 years??? Would taxation even be needed then?

I would be willing to go with a bike license, if it came down to it. Provided that we are given a course with CLEAR road laws, that car drivers would also be informed of. Besides, there are idiots on bikes that really do need to be taught to signal ther intentions, and road laws. I would probably learn some things too.


Staying off of the highways and out of
the way of automotive traffic may be the most effective way of preventing
injury or death while cycling."


Another case of a driver thinking we should be off the roads, because they are dulled to the outside by the "protective values of automotive structure". I think this guy should stop to think about the fact that he drives a potentially leathal mass of metal, and that he needs to be just as aware of his environment as we are. Perhaps a couple days cycling through traffic would put things into perspective? Being that we are not protected, we tend to make ourrselves much more aware of what's going on.

Visibility: He does make a good point about visibility. Perhaps we need to have laws about riding a bike in the night time, with mandatory head and tail lights?

Personally, I'm getting sick of the whole taxation issue for cyclists. I would venture to guess that at least 90 percent of cyclists also own a car (or more than one car) and therefore pay their share of road taxes. Taxing a bike would amount to double taxation. Stupid issue.

Yep, and I would add that much of the money to pay for road construction is not paid for with gas taxes, so the cyclist is paying a fair share. Maybe more than a fair share, since the amount of room that a bike takes is minimal and so is the road damage caused by a cyclist.

A few other points: in general, I agree that drivers need to safely pass slower moving vehicles, BUT it is necessary for lower speed vehicles to stay as far to the right as is safely possible. And, while I will never cede the lane when doing so would be unsafe (i.e., when it means riding in the door zone), I will always cede the lane when I can safely do so and there is someone behind me. IMO, rear view mirrors are the one of the best things a cyclist riding in traffic can have, for this reason and for safety.

One thing that I think is key is that cyclists need to obey the rules of the road if we want to be treated as vehicles. That means signalling, stopping at red lights, acting predictably and with courtesy, etc. Acting like the vehicles that we, in fact are.

I think he has a pretty good point re:illumination and being seen. I will quite often ride with a light/blinkers in traffic. That's just common sense. But it is no excuse for a motorist who is not looking, and it is certainly no excuse for some bozo who is talking on his or her cell phone. You want to improve things dramatically, for everyone, ban driving while talking on a cell, or at least require speakerphones. When I see someone on a cell, I get away as fast as I can.

IN Arizona you are breaking the law if more than 5 vehicles are backed up behind you and you don't let them pass (car or bicycle). That being said I try to be courteous when I see that drivers have difficulty passing me. Of course occasionally the situation dictates I wait until a safe spot to let them by. I think it is all about whether you try to be courteous or try to show those jerks in the cage whose got the rights to the road. If you go with the latter you will be about as popular as a lawyer.

Also, last I checked a great portion of highway funding came from the federal government which gets zero vehicle license tax money.

The problem with bike lanes and bike paths is that sometimes I want to go to a different location than where a bike path leads. There is a very nice bike lane where I live that I ride at least three times a week. It ends after about eight miles. I guess this bozo would have me turn around and ride home when I reached the end. <Sarcasm on> Maybe the best solution is to hook us up to trainers and put us in front of a video screen like in the "Triplets of Belleville". <Sarcasm off>

So last night I had to drive to Hamilton from Toronto which took me a about two hours one way. The distance is not that far on the highway, maybe 75k's. Of all things I was delivering a MTB bike frame I had just sold. So I'd say half of that two hours was slow moving traffic crawling along at very painful pace nary a cyclist in sight. Granted it was on a major highway, however all the roads leading to the highway were just as congested. How anyone can do that everyday, at least twice each day is beyond me. I did it once and it reminded me how much I prefer to commute on my bike, even though I may still be slower.

It just occured to me as well that I could have rode that distance in about 2 1/2 hours on my road bike, but then I'd have to leave the frame at home. Although I guess if I owned a trailer, I could used something like that to carry it, it was pretty dark too, damn, I'm painting myself into a corner on this one...

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, I guess maybe motorists should take as a hint that they are not "all that" and create their own congestion and delays by virtue of sheer numbers w/o my help (except in last nights case).

Oh, I hate that ignorant comment that as a cyclist don't pay taxes. I guess the family school bus I bought in the spring which I paid the so called "gas and tire taxes" on doesn't count, or the house I own, or just about everthing else I buy/consume including bike parts. Oh wait I also hold a valid driver's licence which I renew every five years so I too can operate a motor vehicle when I need to, so p*ss off! :mad:

There should not be just bike paths like other people have already mentioned because people don't see us on the road and don't know how to act. I think that if we are going to break the rules at east people are brought to the attention that bikers are around...many people tell me to ride on the side walk and if i do i will hit peds and there are more doors to open and hit me. I think that people have to drive safely in general wether a bike is there or not... I got hit ayear a go form on coming traffic there was nothing i could have done he came at me , if i was in a car he would of hit me . i think that if i would have beden mre aggressive to the cars in front i would of not been hit by going around the cars but i stayed behind the cars that were stopped and he hit me due to where i was.
if people will treat me as a vheicle and be polite drivers regardless of speed i will obey but since people are to eager to get to the red light i will go arond them and i will take the whole lane because if you rear end a car regardless of speed you are at fault. the same applies to bikes.
while your at itt you might as well try to make a lincese to bike with all the other laws that were metioned now does everyone want to have to get a bike leincese and all that i doubt it...

p.s. I am working on a rebuttal and could use some help....boss expects me to work today :(

<RANT ON>
The situation is not one cyclist vs. all the drivers. It is 1 cyclist and 1 driver at a time being able to cooperate and share the road. I commute on a bicycle, but I also have a car. I pay all the same taxes any other car owner does, and by this person's logic, derive *less* benefit from them. I don't tear up the roads, I don't raise the smog level to the point that mandatory emission inspections are enacted, and I certainly pose no threat to other users of the road.

By the logic of relative vulnerability, small cars should be banned because they come off far worse in a collision with an SUV. Pedestrians would be banned from every stepping outside, and heaven forbid that any farm machinery, highway maintenance equipment, or sobriety checkpoint should ever delay this guy on his way to *his* very important engagement. We should all be travelling around in Navigators, Yukons, and Hummers. C'mon, it's not an arms race, folks.

These always degenerate to a "my rights" shouting match, which instantly means you've stopped listening to the other guy. If we are evaluating this on a "rights" basis, then the cyclists win every time. You get access to the public byways by being a citizen. If you use a car, you must prove that you can do so without unduly endangering others (cars, trucks, cyclists, pedestrians, Mini Coopers, whatever). That ideal must be balanced against the reality that a driver distracted by kids, a cell phone, spilled hot coffee, or a CD player in the dash is not behaving as a competent driver and endangers all around him. I do not expect this to change. It is difficult enough to get a judge to lift a license for (multiple) DUI arrests. All these other sins are venial by comparison.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "Critical Mass" riders who stop traffic, then whine about being harassed by the police. They do us no good from a public image standpoint. I have even less sympathy for the morons who feel the need to throw something at cyclists from moving cars. If a cyclist retaliates at that sort of treatment, I understand. I don't support it, but I understand.

Driving an authomobile is a privilege, not a right. It requires that you share the road with other users in a civil manner. The same is expected of cyclists. I don't understand why this always has to become a confrontation.
<RANT OFF>

If roads were constructed at least two feet of decent shoulder and swept once in awhile to keep down the broken glass, mufflers, and other stuff that falls off cars, I doubt there would be so much debate on this subject.

Can't we all just get along? --Rodney King.

Hi all, I am on a car mailing list and a discussion has come up this week about cyclists because one of the guys on the list was hit by a car on his bicycle. The following is what one of the guys had to say about the situation. I thought you guys might be interested in reading this:

"We see a lot of traffic signs around here about bicycle riders on the road,
etc., but they will never do any good as long as folks on bicycles ride in the
middle of a traffic lane, sometimes two abreast, at speeds from 15 to 50 mph
below the posted speed limit. Given the number of vehicles on the road at
times, bicycle speeds are not compatible with traffic speeds on most county roads
and highways, and in many cases even on city streets.


***If there is no bike lane, we are entitled to that section of road. Law is the law, despite how ***frustrating it is for you, remember we are the ones being frustrated by having a massive steel object ***nipping at our heels, so the discomfort IS mutual. Best fix is to help convince the city to add more ***bike lanes, and enforce their proper usage.


You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc.


***Again, best bet to help with this is to encourage your area to add bike lanes.


People can talk about their "rights" all day, but as with many things,
attempting to enforce these rights with aggressive behaviors can have consequences.
The probable result of Steve White's grabbing a driver by the throat through
an open vehicle window in KY would result in a fatal shooting by driver who
was attacked in his vehicle (his private domain) while carrying a licensed
firearm, and while I don't give legal opinions on anything, one would certainly
expect a "justifiable homicide by self defense" plea if he were even to have been
prosecuted. My suggestion in circumstances like that is to just either learn
to take it, adjust your travel patterns, or advise law enforcement. Violence
on the street only begets escalating violence, and the "rednecks", as some
have referred to them, in their pickup trucks are generally far better armed and
ready to defend themselves than bicycle riders.


***If that was the exact story, then both sides were at fault. It takes quite an effort to anger someone ***who's huffing and puffing away on a bike to get them that angry. Either way, again if we had our own ***lane on that road, however that altercation started may not have happened.

The real solution to the problem is licensing and taxation of bicycles, (in
most jurisdictions bicycles do not pay for license plates and they certainly do
not pay gasoline taxes to contribute to road construction and maintenance)
just as is done with automobiles, with these funds utilized to construct bike
trails on the side of the highways to segregate bicycle traffic from real
traffic. I remember a traffic engineering course many years ago where they taught
that the way to set speed limits was to set out a traffic speed sensing device
and to set the speed limit between the 80th and 90th percentile of the traffic
speeds of the drivers. No politics, green or otherwise back then (which
probably ages me some), just simple engineering and safety.

***You are wrong here. That won't fix anyhting, and it's a near unenforcable law. We should not have ***to pay for gasoline taxes since we don't use any. We do still pay the county through our regular ***income taxes and sales taxes. Now, you do have some valid beef with the cost of incorporating bike ***lanes, but taxes for that can come out of other means. Taxing bicycles will just make the city lose ***money, not gain.


One final point. While many bicycle riders seem to think that automobile
drivers are "out to get them" (Could this be a result of their own recognition of
the adverse effects upon traffic flow of their conveyances and the
frustration that they cause among automobile and truck operators?) when in fact they are
just difficult to see in many ambient conditions. I remember, once again many
years ago, taking a motorcycle safety course where they emphasized utilizing
a head/tail light at all times to increase visibility. Motorcycles have far
better lighting than most bicycles, and they also move at speeds consistent with
surrounding traffic, yet there are many car/truck-motorcycle accidents due to
their limited visibility. The dangers to bicycles are exponentially
increased in comparison to these motorcycles. Sometimes, despite what the bicycle
riders think, it is just a visibility problem and not the malice that is inferred.

***Bike laws emphasize this already, it's just largely unenforced. Right now most places make rear lights ***optional (however a rear reflector is required...I think it should be light required). The front light ***however is mandatory in most states, however bikes are not sold with front lights, and that's where ***the problem lies...people buy a bike with reflectors and think it's fine for night...however if they all ***came with simple krypton bulb lights, then eventually people would start using them. I'm aware of the ***visibility angle, I use the brightest taillights availible to me, and a 10w halogen lamp on front. I like to ***be seen, and make it very clear.


The best solution, although perhaps not to the bicyclists liking, is for them
to stay out of rush hour or moderate and high speed traffic, stay as far to
the right as possible, utilizing road shoulders when possible, pull over and
stop when automotive traffic is building up behind you, ride in single file
only, and perhaps confine your rides to "bike paths" until your taxes can build
more suitable facilities for your use.

***Road shoulders are unsafe, they are not cleaned and often have shrapnel in them. Pulling over and ***stopping is even worse from a safety standpoint. As far as suitable facilites, we already have them, ***share the road.

These practical solutions recognize several factors. First of all, you will
NEVER WIN in a collision with an automobile, pickup truck or 18-wheeler. That
is a simple application of the laws of physics and of nature. You can demand
rights, talk about your freedoms, complain until the cows come home, etc.,
but you do need to recognize that the driver of the average 3/4 ton pickup truck
may not even notice hitting you if he clips you with his rear end due to the
protective values of automotive structure. Secondly, committing assaultive
crimes against drivers for perceived insults and infractions can result in your
arrest at best, and serious injury from an altercation with an individual
exercising his rights of self-defense against your aggression if you are less
fortunate. Just because you may consider your cause to be just doesn't mean that
you will win in practical applications. Staying off of the highways and out of
the way of automotive traffic may be the most effective way of preventing
injury or death while cycling.


***In closing, I have no clue where riders were going 50mph slower than traffic...that would assume an interstate....as far as I know there are few interstates where cyclists are allowed, and those that do, are in such remote areas that it's not even a traffic issue. As far as taxing cyclists, that would hurt everyone since such a measure will be extremely hard to enforce due to the sheer number, and identification factors on each bike. As far as infractions against the rider, most states take points off the rider's driver's license if they have one. As far as taxation, I'll have to think on that...maybe it can be done as a community thing...you wnat bike lanes in your area, you donate towards it or whatever....however I see it more as a both sides chip in to everyone's advantage thing...since if cyclists pay for it, you guys gain from our sweat so to say and we gain from not having cars breathing down our neck, so might as well go 50/50.

Bottom line is, bike lanes, law enforcement, bike lanes, and community awareness. So much crap would be avoided if we had our own lanes, lights and traffic laws were enforced better, and the public understood that cyclists are supposed to be on the road, and not hte sidewalk.

Hi All,

I didn't read all the thread but surely the post of robncindi... My god....
It is stupid.... and so aggressive..... It has nothing to see with my
commuting experience here in Montreal... I don't feel like it is a war, car
against cycles, we share the road and try respect each other. I do not
say that there is not idiot cyclist and/or idiot care drivers but it is
little minority.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right to locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other Citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." - American Jurisprudence 1st, Constitutional Law, Section 329, p. 1135.

LOTS of very good information here: http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sidewalks/humanpower.htm

Dave

The following is a news release from Toronto Police Services. It focuses on the result of a traffic law campaign called, "Operation Impact" which took place over Canadian Thanksgiving long weekend, just this past weeked. I thought the stats were interesting... I'd really like to know the specifics of the cycling related charges, and if a number of charges were given to cyclists who hold a valid drivers licence. I suppose I could e-mail the detectives, however may no get any answers.

2004-10-13

The following News Release has been posted:

Operation Impact – Campaign Update Toronto Police Service Stops Over 9,400 Vehicles

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/release.php?id=6299

Traffic Services
416-808-1900

The results of the fourteenth annual 'Operation Impact,' which took place over Thanksgiving weekend, are in. The campaign, which ended at midnight Monday, October 11, 2004, brought together police services from across Canada to raise awareness to ensure safer roads are a public priority.

Toronto Police Service officers stopped 9,412 vehicles and issued 4,709 charges to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians found committing offences. Of the charges laid:

- 72 Drinking and Driving charges were laid,
- 316 Roadside Breathalyzer tests were conducted,
- 292 tickets were issued for seat belt offences,
- 589 tickets were issued for speeding offences,
- 87 pedestrian offences were laid,
- 44 charges were laid against cyclists,
- 49 charges were laid against motorcycles, and
- 3,260 other charges were laid against motorists.

This year to date there have been 40 traffic fatalities within Toronto. All motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are reminded to obey all traffic laws and be diligent when using our city streets; road safety is everyone’s responsibility.

For further information on Operation Impact, please contact Constable Stephen Burns at 416-808-1919 or Sergeant Devin Kealey at 416-808-1926.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/release.php?id=6299

This release will expire on: 2004-11-12

H23's reply started this thread's reply out on the right foot..Cyclists add to lessening congestion..But, motorists clump us all together as recreational..We must fight that..I use my bike for errands, work commutes, just like a motorist...Many might disagree, I would pay for a reasonable bike fee to assure our rights to the road. It should be based on the fact, we do not damage asphalt as do motorized vehicles. Sort of how they base truck fees based on weight...We lessen the demands on our transportation system...But, road construction should be required to consider cyclists need when roads are built..that makes modifications far cheaper.

Assumming this person is talking about one lane of traffic in each direction, I agree with EVERYTHING he said. And i think it's cyclists' egos that make the whole car/bicylce situation worse for cyclists. I am fortunate enough to live in an area where all main roads are at least two lanes wide on each side. But when i'm on a small residential road i always make sure that other traffic can pass me if they need to. The road may be my only choice, but i am considerate to cars in hopes that they will be considerate to me when needed. If i see a car purposely wait for me to pass before pulling out I give a thankful wave. When i have to move into a busy intersection I make sure i pedal my a$$ off so they at least see i'm making an effort and then i move over as soon as possible.
I know there are going to be assmunches out there that will treat a cyclist poorly now matter how we treat them back, but for the most part we need to realize that they do have the "bigger guns" and we need to respect the fact that the roads WERE built for them, not us. Be grateful that we are givin the right to share the road with them in the first place. Maybe you'll even save your own butt.

There is a good point. Why not use some of that tax money we all pay to create cycling friendly roads? It wouldn't take much...an extra 2 feet (or 3) of shoulder and we're all happy.

You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc.


Wah wah wah wah! Cry baby cry because I cannot hear you. What a whiny baby; I have the same damned rights as those four wheel freaks on the road. Make you late? Perhaps you shouldn't be running late in the first place. Rush hour? Rush hour is created by large groups of hurrying idiots doing everything at the last minute because the majority of them are talking on their cell phones or have their minds in some other place. If I met someone with that exact attitude, I would choke him. Even through his car window. ;) (not really through his car window.)

***In closing, I have no clue where riders were going 50mph slower than traffic...that would assume an interstate....as far as I know there are few interstates where cyclists are allowed, and those that do, are in such remote areas that it's not even a traffic issue.

I can and have given plenty of examples... in particular, I point to multilane boulevards in the San Diego area, an area which is otherwise particularly good to cycle in. These boulevards typically allow auto traffic to transition from mesa to mesa... a particular local geography. The speed limit on these boulevards is typically 45 to 55 mph, bikes fly down from the mesa to the lower valley, then have to climb up the other side at say 7-10mph, making the speed difference in some cases as high as 45mph... darn close to your 50MPH.

On the good boulevards, there is a nice wide bike lane for bikes to transition up the hill off of the auto path, on the bad boulevards, you are lucky to get even a dirt shoulder. Due to the curves and hills involved, the forward visibility (and this is further compounded by fog in the valleys during mornings and evenings) that a driver can see is maybe 1/4 mile. If one was to "take a lane" on one of the bad boulevards... with that 1/4 mile visibility, then you are expecting a car driver to see you and realize that you are in the same lane, AND make a decision about you in 20 seconds or so.... provided they are paying attention and not on cell phones/playing with the radio, etc. (1/4 mi = 1320 feet; 45mph = 66 ft per second).

Now 20 seconds may seem like a long time... less than half a minute, less than the typical radio station break... If a driver is paying attention, if you are seen, and if it is not foggy and or dark. This is your "interstate" situation on local surface streets. It happens a lot around here. Take a lane in a situation like this and you are betting on both visibility and that 20 seconds, AND being seen and recognized in the first place. And we all know that bikes are invisible! :eek:

You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc.

I love this quote about rush hour traffic! It's so funny! I will pass all these cars that are at a dead stop and in a long line of traffic for miles. When I need to make my left turn, I just get off my bike, put it on my shoulder, and walk between the cars into the middle lane. I think that's so funny! I had a couple drivers tell me that's not fair. Oh well!

I disagree about bike lanes.
I for one don't want more bike lanes built.
Here in Sweden, the law says that bikers MUST use the bike lane if one is available.
Since virtually all of the bike lanes here are shared with pedestrians, they're sanded during the winter.
The sand stays throughout most of the year, since bike lanes see very little use, and create problems.
Cornering grip is reduced to almost nothing (the stuff they spread out is mainly made up of small pieces of rock, around 2-4 mm (1/12th-1/6th in) in size) and the rolling resistance increases markedly. The bike constantly jumps around from the irregularities, and the rocks are thrown into the drivetrain, increasing wear and preventing proper functionality.

Fortunately, there's a loophole in the law, which allows you to use the normal road if that's better suited for your onward journey. That's pretty much the wording of the law, and I'd argue that in my defence if someone stopped me...
But I doubt anyone would...

"You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc."


I don't think any cyclists really go out to intentionally cause a delay. In fact, most are very concerned with performance, or at least their own efficiency from point a to point b. By mentioning that he feels cyclists are making him late, he's admitting he is aware of them, and in turn could adjust his schedule in case he happens along one the way to wherever (why not, people plan for rush hour). Another odd thing is that "rush hour" is mentioned as if it were some kind of natural phenomema.

And going to work at "approximately" the posted speed? Just what is "approximately" ? I wonder where this person drives. On the 3 mile stretch of 25 MPH road I travel everyday, I can hit the speed limit on about half of it. Rarely do I pass a motor vehicle, and if I do, it's at or near a stoplight, or turn lane. However; I am often passed by them. Meaning they are traveling a greater velocity than the posted speed limit.

And when I do end up driving (2-3 times a year) I drive the speed limit, and am constantly passed.

I guessing this person is more upset about cyclists forcing him to obey traffic regulations; they can't speed, they have to look out and be aware of their surroundings. We're not in the way of reasonable travel, we're impeding their own impatience, or at least this particular persons.

Are there poor cyclists out there? Sure. I see people on the sidewalks all the time (usually riding dept store bikes), and I see urban street riders/bmxers that ride the road with total abandon. But most of the actual "commuters" I see are pretty conscious of the rules and such; most have lights, reflective gear, and ride appropriately for the situation. Shame that commuters are only a small percentage of total cyclists. And I'd wager that most "drivers" that have problems with cyclists are experiencing encounters with the non-commuting/non utilitarian users, and that is unfortunate for us both, and I wish I had the answer to apply to all cyclists, not just commuters...

Sorry, not quite as articulate as most of you, but these are the points of his rant that disturbed me most.

ok, now i see where the 50mph difference is coming from, yea...that area needed a lane a LONG time ago. I also bet with it being a multi-lane there is prolly a 6ft shoulder or similar which can cheaply be converted to a bikelane. most of the multi-lanes I've seen tend to have decen shoulders.

Up here, I don't see many roads like that, but i try to stay off anyhting with a speed limit greater than 45mph, and I'm usually cruising about 18-20, maybe 12 if i'm on a short hill....yep I make sure my ride isn't too hilly either...I know some folks dont think the same as i do though. My choice came from my dislike for drivers to be breathing down my neck...plus I've seen plenty of rage towards me on my evening commutes...one guy going as far as tailgating me while balsting the horn...I wasnt amused to say the least...he had more than enough room to pass.

Really it's a two-sided issue, and it's a good thing to have this thread if we can keep civil about it. Who knows, maybe a good plan between us cyclists and the drivers could be made?

After all, many of us do commute on bike (I do, 9mi each way everyday), and for some of use, we dont even own a car, using our bike for everything (again, I'm that guy)..so some of us may seem defensive, but that's just because someone is talking about "tweaking" our way of living solely around their inconveniences. The key is just finding the right answer so the inconvenience is minimal.

You have to remeber cyclists do have to follow traffic laws, so sometimes you may see one of us have to go outside of the bike lane a few lanes over for a left turn, etc. Law states it, so many of us will do it. I never felt comfortable doing it, but I do since it makes more sense than any other idea (riding through a crosswalk is illegal in many places, keep that in mind).

What you should respond is that this a shared concern. Bicycle safety and traffic flow are related. Where as bicycles are entitled to use of the roadway, I am sure that almost all of us would rather ride in a bike lane. In areas/roads where bicycle traffic has a profound impact on automobile traffic it is not only our responsibility but also auto commuters responsibility to address the county/city/state for a bike lane or trail. As far as taxes go, we pay them, and I am sure that there are Federal Grants that can be tapped to cover these expenses.

ok, now i see where the 50mph difference is coming from, yea...that area needed a lane a LONG time ago. I also bet with it being a multi-lane there is prolly a 6ft shoulder or similar which can cheaply be converted to a bikelane. most of the multi-lanes I've seen tend to have decen shoulders.

Sure, but the shoulder is all dirt... and the city just doesn't go the extra mile to pave these... but they slap a "bike route" sign up and you are on your own. And of course the "bike route" means nothing to a car, they can barely see the darn things.

So of course to a car, a bike on this (taking a lane) is a terrible inconvience... hence bad attitude... and yet there is no other way (every cyclist I know that uses these routes would LOVE to find a flatter alternative, but due to the geography of the area, none exist. Heck I know some guys that have taken to riding in the train track siding right of way because at least the gradiant is less... of course it is a $500 fine if you are caught.

Rush hour? Rush hour is created by large groups of hurrying idiots doing everything at the last minute because the majority of them are talking on their cell phones or have their minds in some other place. If I met someone with that exact attitude, I would choke him. Even through his car window. ;) (not really through his car window.)

After having objects thrown at me and cursed by idiots..
I feel your pain...Just could not bring myself to follow through..
I even feel more so, in agreement when driving those four wheel monsters.

OK, here is my reply to him. I understand some of where he was coming from but don't at all agree with all of his comments. Sorry this is so long....

Steve, here are some comments on your rant about cyclists. I agree with some of your arguments but you obviously have something against us. I am sorry that there are a few bad road cyclists that live near you but please do not group "ALL" cyclists into one category. I am very courteous and do everything I can to stay out of the way of traffic as do most all cyclists I know. There are situations that cannot be helped and my right to live is more important than the motorist's right to get to a meeting on time. Or in the case of Donald, he was only trying to cross a railroad track, he did nothing to provoke the attack on him or the audacity to leave the scene of an accident because it was only a cyclist, we are people too and deserve at least a bit of common courtesy. So, here are a few thoughts for you to chew on...your comments in quotes obviously....


"but they will never do any good as long as folks on bicycles ride in the
middle of a traffic lane, sometimes two abreast, at speeds from 15 to 50 mph
below the posted speed limit."

Do you really see this often? I would bet that there are very few cyclists that ride two abreast and hold up traffic for more than a few seconds. Most serious road cyclists ride in a pace line to draft off one another. Not two or more abreast. When I ride to work there are only two places that I hold up traffic for any more time than it takes for converging traffic to pass one another. If cyclists bother you that much then you should lobby your county to widen the roads so that cyclists will have a safe place to ride or take another route.

"You do have you right to ride a bicycle, but you don't have a right to delay
traffic, cause others to be late for appointments, extend travel times for the
majority, especially during peak travel hours such as "rush hour", which in
our case out here means folks going to work at approximately the posted speed
limit for 10- 30 miles from their homes, etc."

I have every right in the world to delay you for as long as it takes to get down a section of road that doesn't have a shoulder wide enough for me to ride on. You are simply wrong about this. There is no posted minimum speed limit on any road other than the interstate, the speed limit is the MAXIMUM, not minimum. If you are running that late for appointments then maybe you should leave earlier. As a cyclist I have NEVER delayed anyone more that a few seconds. I take total command of one section of road and ride in the middle of the lane because riding on the side of the lane would cause me to likely be hit and thrown off an overpass. The bridge in question is narrow with two lanes and ZERO shoulder, it has stop lights on both sides timed in such a way that when one side turns green I can mash on the pedals and ride to the other side before the next light turns green. If any driver thinks that this is a delay they have bigger issues that maybe Dr. Phil could address. I usually try to get in front of a young lady so she might admire my legs and my spandex covered arse for the 20 seconds it takes me to get across.

"People can talk about their "rights" all day, but as with many things,
attempting to enforce these rights with aggressive behaviors can have consequences."

I totally agree with that statement, never been aggressive although there have been some situations where I would have liked to have been

"The real solution to the problem is licensing and taxation of bicycles, (in
most jurisdictions bicycles do not pay for license plates and they certainly do
not pay gasoline taxes to contribute to road construction and maintenance)
just as is done with automobiles, with these funds utilized to construct bike
trails on the side of the highways to segregate bicycle traffic from real
traffic."

This is flawed because most cyclists I know own automobiles also and they pay taxes just like everyone else, I have five cars and two boats that I pay road tax on the gas I buy for them. We cyclists should get a tax credit for the miles we ride to work based on the fact that we don't add to the congestion, smog and overall aggravation of the daily commute.

"One final point. While many bicycle riders seem to think that automobile
drivers are "out to get them" (Could this be a result of their own recognition of
the adverse effects upon traffic flow of their conveyances and the
frustration that they cause among automobile and truck operators?) when in fact they are
just difficult to see in many ambient conditions."

Let me tell you, the problems I have had with motorist (and they were out to get me!) have been times when I was on a wide shoulder of a country road where it was more than obvious they saw me. One time it was a group of rednecks that decided it would be fun to swerve and blare their horn so to scare the silly cyclist. HAHA. Another I was on the wide shoulder again when the kid in a pickup swerved, again to scare me I assume. Neither of these attacks were provoked by me or my affect on traffic flow. There have been more but these are the typical problems, never when I have been on a narrow road where you claim the aggression is coming from.

"The best solution, although perhaps not to the bicyclists liking, is for them
to stay out of rush hour or moderate and high speed traffic, stay as far to
the right as possible, utilizing road shoulders when possible, pull over and
stop when automotive traffic is building up behind you, ride in single file
only, and perhaps confine your rides to "bike paths" until your taxes can build
more suitable facilities for your use."

You just can not expect cyclists to keep out of traffic. It is our right to ride just as much as it is our right to drive and like I have said none of the people I have had encounters with were delayed in any way shape or form because of my riding and I highly doubt that any of the cyclists in your area have caused you that much delay either. As for the shoulders, maybe we should tax all the beer drinkers and drivers so that those taxes will go towards sweeping that shoulder of all the broken beer bottles and other debris that forces us unruly cyclists into the traffic lane on occasion.

"These practical solutions recognize several factors. First of all, you will
NEVER WIN in a collision with an automobile, pickup truck or 18-wheeler. That
is a simple application of the laws of physics and of nature."
Staying off of the highways and out of the way of automotive traffic may be the most effective way of preventing
injury or death while cycling."

I agree with most of this final statement. I am fully aware of the laws of physics and what a collision would do to me. I take that risk because I choose to be healthy and if I die trying I guess there are worse ways to go...like being fat and lazy and dieing of a heart attack while watching oprah

Rob
Lake Conroe, Texas
www.pbase.com/robncindi
04 Trek 2200
02 Jeep Gr. Cherokee Limited 4.7 HO
99 CLK320
97 Kawasaki 1100STX (Jetski)
91 Dodge W250 4x4
82 300D

I especially like this line: "We cyclists should get a tax credit for the miles we ride to work based on the fact that we don't add to the congestion, smog and overall aggravation of the daily commute."

Two things I have learned:
1. At rush hour I can get through congested intersections quite a bit faster on a bicycle.
2. Although as a whole I can't go as fast on a bike, I've learned that what makes for a good commute is not the shortness of time it took, but the quality of the experience. A positive experience contributes to the quality of my life, while bad experiences take away from it.

Driving is usually an exercise in frustration and aggression, and this does not contribute to the quality of life.

There is a good point. Why not use some of that tax money we all pay to create cycling friendly roads? It wouldn't take much...an extra 2 feet (or 3) of shoulder and we're all happy.

Technically you shouldn't be cycling on the shoulder anyways. I'm good for a wider right hand lane so that there is enough room for a cyclist and motorist to share the lane safely.

Sure, but the shoulder is all dirt... and the city just doesn't go the extra mile to pave these... but they slap a "bike route" sign up and you are on your own. And of course the "bike route" means nothing to a car, they can barely see the darn things.

So of course to a car, a bike on this (taking a lane) is a terrible inconvience... hence bad attitude... and yet there is no other way (every cyclist I know that uses these routes would LOVE to find a flatter alternative, but due to the geography of the area, none exist. Heck I know some guys that have taken to riding in the train track siding right of way because at least the gradiant is less... of course it is a $500 fine if you are caught.


Ugh, yes definately a good time to talk to the city council if possible about making a real bike lane, and not just a defined patch of dirt. Maybe ask if any of them are willing to do a saturday ride down that stretch, just to see how it is, it's a long shot, but you never know who has a bike.

Basically that area sounds like it needs some serious lane planning. Having hte cars respect that lane is another matter...law enforcement should be up on that, possibly have the "carpool cops" do sweeps of the bike lane as well.

Ugh, yes definately a good time to talk to the city council if possible about making a real bike lane, and not just a defined patch of dirt. Maybe ask if any of them are willing to do a saturday ride down that stretch, just to see how it is, it's a long shot, but you never know who has a bike.

Basically that area sounds like it needs some serious lane planning. Having the cars respect that lane is another matter...law enforcement should be up on that, possibly have the "carpool cops" do sweeps of the bike lane as well.

This is not just one area... there are several roads that are like this. San Diego is a series of mesas and valleys, and these boulevards connect the mesas by dropping down into the valleys and coming back up the next mesa... of course as you get closer to the ocean the mesas tend to flatten out, but there are also high cliffs over the ocean in certain beach areas from similar mesas of the same type. So this really is not an isolated situation. These roads are isolated connectors, so it is impossible to "go another way." (one way to and from the mesa... the mesa geography also effects us locally in the way we fight wild fires... last year we had a major wildfire in the area in which the fire fighting vehicles could only gain limited access to fight the fires as it jumped from mesa to mesa)

Now many of the mesa connecting boulevards do have wide right lanes with even bike lanes, but others do not. The older streets obviously are the worst. But even with bike lanes the speed delta between bikes and autos can be quite high... and a distracted driver...

Regarding one route in particular, I doubt that any city council would dare ride it... a woman was killed on this route last year by an stupid driver... don't recall if it was "cell phone" or "looking for CD" that was the root cause, but it was a narrow area and a distracted driver that hit a woman with many years of biking experience... she was probably "taking a lane" as there was no shoulder. It was also a well lit sunny afternoon... so no limited visibility excuses. Driver claimed "I just did not see her." At 50 MPH... no doubt.


We do have local bike representitives with access to the council... some of the worst roads still remain that way... all we can do is holler more! :mad:

My big point was pointing out that such roads, that are NOT safe, and have nearly hiway like speeds, and where one cannot "take a lane" safely, do indeed exist.

There is a good point. Why not use some of that tax money we all pay to create cycling friendly roads? It wouldn't take much...an extra 2 feet (or 3) of shoulder and we're all happy.

Couldn't agree more, extra shoulder, not necessarily bike paths. There are a lot of these roads with wide shoulders around where I have been living for the last couple of years and can't tell you how much it contributes to a real "share the road" attitude. I would even consider a volontary (not mandatory) tax for having more of these wide shoulders, particularly in busy roads..

...The real solution to the problem is licensing and taxation of bicycles, (in
most jurisdictions bicycles do not pay for license plates and they certainly do
not pay gasoline taxes to contribute to road construction and maintenance)
just as is done with automobiles, with these funds utilized to construct bike
trails on the side of the highways to segregate bicycle traffic from real
traffic...

I always appreciate this one! Automobiles do not pay licensing taxes nor do they pay gasoline taxes...people do. I own five bicycles, but I also own six (that's 6) automobiles! All of them are licensed, drivable (and do get driven) and have fuel in their tanks. (1996 Honda Accord, 1991 Ranger XLT, 1991 Overland Discovery Express 38' Diesel powered motor home, 1985 Honda Gold Wing LTD, 1985 Toyota MR 2 and finally a pristine 1963 Jaguar XKE). My opinion, when there is ever an issue of who has more rights to the road based on road fees paid, I can usually proceed to the front row. I probably pay more road dues than the idi...I mean the gentleman making the statement in the quote above. :D

In another example...the wife and I are proceeding down the road on our tandem. We are using 3 feet of the right side of the lane. A gentleman, alone in his "Yank tank", comes up behind us and blares his horn...clearly he thinks he (by his lonesome) has more rights to the road than the two of us. Given that we are both licensed drivers, home owners and taxpayers and have 6 licensed automobiles, and there are two of us compared to one of he...I think he was mistaken. Now add the fact that it was a four lane road and there was no traffic! Some people have nothing better to do!

Oh dear, some guy decides to bring up a few really old trolls that were rebutted long ago, but because he's in a bad mood, he wants an argument with nobody in particular. Just a few comments in what I expect will be my one and only post in this thread.

1. The taxes issue is a complete misnomer. It's been looked into at government level in several Australian states, as well as several US states, and the conclusion has always been that it's just not economically viable -- simply due to the fact that people are unwilling to pay enough to register their bikes to cover the admin costs.

2. The time delays issue. I'd suggest this guy actually measure the time it takes to pass a cyclist -- it's rarely more than three seconds (and certainly never more than 30). Compare that to red lights where one can lose as much as 20 minutes on a single change. If he's really so worried about being late for an appointment, he should just leave five minutes earlier in the morning.

3. Extend travelling time during rush hour? This has to be a crock. I challenge him to try to drive the gridlock on the Sundale Bridge at the same time as I'm riding it. When I get to the other side 30 minutes before he does, what will be his excuse then? Some imaginary moustache twirling cyclist that deliberately "held him up"? Yeah right.

4. If he wants to whinge about cyclist breaking the law, he should first look at his own behaviour. Speed limit does not mean "minimum acceptable speed". Until he realises this and adjusts his behaviour accordingly, he has no reason to complain here.

5. If he doesn't want to have to drive "10-30" miles to get to work, he should move closer.

6. Finally, if he thinks cyclists get such an easy and free ride on the roads at the expense of drivers, there's nothing stopping him from taking it up himself. If he'd prefer to sit in his smogbox all day, then he should just STFU and stop whinging.

I forgot to add one or two things to my post, which I will now correct. Point 6 was the most important one.

However, I don't think people like this are really worth wasting our time on. In the end, the amount of influence someone like this ranting on a message board can have is pretty minimal at best. Just let him have his rant and enjoy his little bout of stress. It really won't change anything.

San Diego is a series of mesas and valleys, and these boulevards connect the mesas by dropping down into the valleys and coming back up the next mesa...

Oh, boy. I used to ride a bike in San Diego. Texas Street. That's all I'm gonna say.

No but seriously it was kinda fun riding in San Diego. It was so scary it was almost exhilarating. But there were a lot of intersection that were not designed with pedestrians or bikes in mind at all, with no real way to negotiate them safely at all.

I feel for ya.

What is needed are advocacy groups. We have a pretty good one here in Santa Barbara. They cause a big fuss and get a lot done.

Regarding the first post that got this started - I've heard a lot worse rants than that. That one was tame. I had a trucker come out of the cab of his stopped rig with a tire iron and threaten me...because I was on a bike and attempting to make a left turn in front of him...at a stop sign. However this bicyclists vs. automobiles argument is always an emotional one on both sides of the fence. I drive. I also ride bicycles for recreation and for commuting (I'm over 1500 commute miles this year BTW). There are discourteous drivers and discourteous bicyclists. There are also courteous ones and they probably don't take sides in these kinds of discussions. I've learned a couple of things while trying to coexist with cars while on my bike:

In California, just as the person from Arizona pointed out, there is a law regarding holding up traffic. Slower vehicles holding up traffic need to pull over and let traffic pass. That's the law. Bicycles are vehicles. I give autos every opportunity to pass when I can and don't ride in the middle of a lane with a car behind me (unless of course I'm turning left from that lane and I've already signaled).

Commercial truckers are some of the most courteous drivers on the road (statistically speaking). Parents in a hurry to drive their kids to school while talking on their cell phones are the least courteous (again statistically speaking).

Considering the laws of physics I probably won't start an argument with a 3000 lb auto while on my 25 lb bike. I probably won't win that one.

I completely agree that bicyclists need not be taxed for road maintenance. Bicycles simply don't cause that much road wear and tear now do they. And they don't pollute unless sweat counts...

Stereotyping doesn't work either.

Yes there are those folks that some call "rednecks" in pickups. Our rants will never change their minds about bicycists. Had one pass the other day and jammed his accelerator pedal to the floor just before he went by...in a turbo diesel truck...it makes them puke a lot of soot and black smoke when they do that. Most people don't act that way though and will smile and or wave when we cyclists show some courtesy to them. Those are the people we need to leave a lasting impression on. Those are the folks that might just vote for adding much needed bike lanes or to widen a road for cyclists.

Oh, boy. I used to ride a bike in San Diego. Texas Street. That's all I'm gonna say.

No but seriously it was kinda fun riding in San Diego. It was so scary it was almost exhilarating. But there were a lot of intersection that were not designed with pedestrians or bikes in mind at all, with no real way to negotiate them safely at all.

I feel for ya.

What is needed are advocacy groups. We have a pretty good one here in Santa Barbara. They cause a big fuss and get a lot done.

I know that road and avoid it... it is too dangerous. Balboa to Morena is also a major pain... and yet Morena is sooooo usable.

Yeah an amazing area to ride considering the weather... along the coast is a blast, and some of the isolated east county moutain roads are great, but those "mesa connectors" are just a royal pain. I do Genesee through UTC and to Clairemont all the time, and climbing up to Clairemont Mesa in the evening (after goosing across the 52 onramp...yikes) is just a super stress inducer... just a sitting duck waiting for the jerks to fly by and honk, throw stuff or buzz you.... and they do. You're going maybe 7MPH and they're flying by at 45...

I keep looking for alternative routes. Best I have found takes me all the way around Miramar and onto the flats of Kearny Mesa Blvd... great (love that spin on KMB) until I get to 163 and Clairemont Mesa... then it is claim the lane and pedal like mad... no room on the bridges!

With the weather here one would think there could be more bike commuting, but it really is difficult at times. Further up the coast (have done the whole coast from SF to SD) at Goleta they really know how to do bike intersections... the lights even change for bikes. Ahhhhhhh.

Yes there are those folks that some call "rednecks" in pickups. Our rants will never change their minds about bicycists. Had one pass the other day and jammed his accelerator pedal to the floor just before he went by...in a turbo diesel truck...it makes them puke a lot of soot and black smoke when they do that. Most people don't act that way though and will smile and or wave when we cyclists show some courtesy to them. Those are the people we need to leave a lasting impression on. Those are the folks that might just vote for adding much needed bike lanes or to widen a road for cyclists.

Maybe when gas is $10.00 a gallon... :D