TransitBiker

Here where I live, standard "cyclists are vehicle operators" laws, plus no riding on sidewalk. There are rec paths that resemble a sidewalk, but peds, bikes, skates, and boards can share. There are some spots where cyclists sharing path are required to walk, but those are pretty few & far between.

- Andy

spivonious

This is correct in PA as well:

From Title 75, Chapter 1:
"Roadway." That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk, berm or shoulder even though such sidewalk, berm or shoulder is used by pedalcycles. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" refers to each roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively.

jfowler85

Interesting. I see your philosophy about the matter, but the reality is that the perception is always there, it's a demographic. When I was in the Navy, we were constantly warned to watch our behavior out in town because, as a broad generalization (which I have found to be accurate), in the eyes of the public someone in a military uniform represents the military as a whole. Same reason why I take my federal badge off when I leave the building, it's possible for me represent the organization I work for in a negative way and the last thing this beauracracy needs is bad pr. You may disagree with grouping people together by what they do, but it happens all the time. You said it yourself, cyclists are folks who ride bikes...how is that not a group of people? Don't tell me you've never judged a culture, demographic, occupation, etc by one person. Everyone does it, and everyone knows everyone does it. This ideology is ubiquitous. You do represent other cyclists on the road, despite your opinion of the matter...we (see there, I write "we" because I am fairly certain you will understand that I mean "we who ride bicycles") do the same thing and make generalizations about dickheads in vehicles on the road. Thinking that this does not occur is simply wishful.

FBinNY 

You have something of a point, especially when one is seen as a member of a group which already has an image problem. But I disagree that this is universal world view. I can honestly say that I've never projected the actions of an individual or small number of people onto a group. (Maybe because growing up in NYC conditions one not to).

You apparently do, as evidenced by the last sentence of your post. Maybe it's that people who do this expect that everybody does, and that people who don't, don't.

As for the image of bicyclists in my area, it's anything but monolithic. People engage with me all the time, including a decent share of motorists, and may comment about whether it's safe, saying they wish they too could ride, ask local directions (always fun when I explain that I'm 100 miles from home) or any other thing, (I get lots of encouragement and support when I look like a drowned rat in a rainstorm). Are there jerk drivers in my area, of course there are, but they're a small minority. Most of the few negative encounters I have are issues of driver skill and awareness rather than anti-bike intent.

In fact, I can't see any kind of pattern at all among motorists or the way they engage with me, except that professional drivers tend to be better.

grolby

Let's cut through all the longwinded nonsense and get straight to the point - are motorists' negative opinions of cyclists the result of cyclist behavior? Can cyclists receive better treatment and improve their safety by insisting on more "law-abiding" behavior by other cyclists?

I think the answer is very clearly no, perception of cyclists has very little if anything to do with the actual behavior of cyclists and everything to do with an ingrained belief that the roads are for cars and cyclists are intruders without any rights. Actual case law history backs this up - kill a bicyclist with your car, and so long as you do not flee the scene you are unlikely to be charged with a crime. If you are charged, you will receive no more than a slap on the wrist. An examination of collision statistics reveals, too, that in a majority of cyclist/car collisions, the driver of the vehicle is at fault. That sort of puts paid to the idea that cyclists are a bunch of reckless ne'er do wells who put their own lives in danger.

Negative stereotypes of cyclists serve a social purpose, reinforcing that driving a car is normal and proper, and riding a bike is weird and suspect. They will not change if cyclists as a group alter their behavior. Yes, there are cyclists out there who don't obey all the rules all the time. I'm one of them myself, sometimes. But that's not the point. Motorists, as a group, exhibit at least as much and far more hazardous misbehavior: they routinely speed, fail to properly yield, roll stop signs and run red lights. Somehow, though, this is accepted as normal.

The situation is what it is because cyclists are poorly represented politically and socially. Going after other cyclists not only won't make motorists think any better of us, it can be very damaging to the political mission of bicycle advocacy.

jfowler85

I see. I appreciate the civil demeanor in your response.

You are correct, I do group folks according all kinds of specific demographics, but I must point out that in the post I responded to you referred specifically to discrimination, which I despise wholeheartedly as a member of a federalyl recognized Native American tribe. I said what I did as it is a paradigm that helps to shape how I act towards others in the public domain (read above: "when I was in the Navy..."). I've done a lot of cycling in a crowded southern CA megalopolis and there are an awful lot of cyclists there who see it fit run red lights/stop signs, blow through intersections out-of-turn, weave through slow moving traffic, etc. It's most definitely a sub-culture that does group rides - they're terrible about clogging up In-N-Out late at night. My point initally was just to say that there are cyclists like that out there, and it is fitting of those of us who abide by the law to promote that. Where I currently live there are plenty of cyclists, but I have yet to see the yahoos like I did in CA. I certianly can understand how you don't see patterns among motorists, but again my point is that our collective cognitive structure is such that we seek patterning, and it's not uncommon to see the behavior of a single entity and apply it to the whole. If that is honestly not something you do, then I would argue that you are an outlier on that bell curve, but of course I have nothing objective to back that claim up with.

spare_wheel

meh.

i've been enthusiastically violating motorvehicle-centric traffic statutes for almost 30 years. i typically violate at least 3-4 statutes on every ride (often multiple times). despite doing so in front of leo countless times i have yet to have a police officer do anything other than complement my ride or visibility.

jfowler85

That's followed by long winded response. Not sure you were aware that you did that.

Of course the perception doesn't match up with reality, that's not the point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear - the point is to say that the perception exists. You must agree with me by virtue that you acknowledge that the perception exists. No one is going after other cyclists here; re-read my inital entry into this thread wherein I make the point that it is bad advice to pass on the implication that some laws aren't important enough to follow.

FBinNY 

I have a policy of not knowingly running red lights right in front of a cop. Sometimes I'll stop right by a police car, and he'll ask me why I stopped. My pat answer is that I usually go through reds, but it doesn't feel right to rub his nose in it. I've had some respond that I should feel free, they won't be offended, but to be careful.

spare_wheel

i tend to avoid blatant light running around other motorists but will frequently jump a light when the coast is clear (gets me out of their way). i almost always roll stop signs and right turns. probably the only thing i do differently with le vehicles is to give them wider berth since they are less predictable in traffic.

FMB42

Just go to your local DMV and grab a "driver's manual" (or, find it online). This manual will explain what is legal and what isn't when it comes to riding bicycles in your state. Btw, you might be surprised at what you learn!

spare_wheel

*sigh*


of course some "laws" are unimportant enough to not follow. this is why they are:

1) not enforced
and/or
2) classified as "infractions" (e.g. not even a lowly misdemeanor)
and/or
3) the butt of jokes and subject to derision

some examples in portland: performing a wedding ceremony at a skating rink, passing through a congested thoroughfare more than twice per night, possession of small amounts of marijuana, forgetting to pay a library/parking fine, jaywalking, and rolling a stop sign on a bike (this is correctly treated as a serious offence for a motorvehicle).

jfowler85

Wrong context.

grolby

Yes.

And you think the reaction to unfair stereotypes not based in reality is to act as though they are justified by insisting that cyclists be more obedient to traffic laws? That's an illogical and ineffective response.

I disagree:

Maybe by "combat this," you mean only that "law abiders" should work extra-hard to abide by the laws, but that's a fairly tortured reading. First of all, you say that there's a "cycling subculture which promotes things like running red lights," which is a false statement. Or if it is true, it is at least as true that there is a driving subculture that promotes these things. Certainly speeding by drivers is far more prevalent than red light running by cyclists. Second of all, the implication of "making an effort to combat this" is strongly denouncing or otherwise going after cyclists that do break these laws.

jpatkinson

Spend one day in San Francisco on your bicycle. If you follow all the traffic laws perfectly, you will piss off a few motorists (I have had bus and car drivers honk at me for coming to a stop sign, yelling "Just go!" out the window in one case 2d ago). If you blow stop signs (and quite a few red lights), you will piss off quite a few (more) motorists, as is reflected in the (unscientifically significant) anti-bicycle rants about the "horrible cyclists" in SF every time a cyclist gets run over (usually by a right-hooking truck).

Living here 10 years: a significant majority of cyclists in SF blow stop signs (no change in pace), jump red lights, and pass on the right (which drives me F*ing nuts). I believe these behaviors contribute to a broad local perception that "every cyclist" has a death wish. And, as a consequence, I DO believe this -- in-turn -- decreases the respect given by non-cyclists to cyclists, and increases the relative danger I face each day I choose to commute by bicycle. For my daughter's sake, I hope I am wrong. - JP

spare_wheel

i imagine that when your wrote that there was a *clap of thunder*.

please unclench your scranus and just ride.

spare_wheel

if i were stuck in a cage and had to watch cyclists flowing past me with ease i would also likely rant a bit.

TransitBiker

I should mention, that operators of large vehicles appreciate you staying well clear in their blind spots in the instance of stopping at intersections. On top of that, being in their visibility if possible. For example, the transit bus has no rear window, so i give it nearly a car length if i'm behind, or if i'm to the side, i will try to be 2-3 feet in front so the driver knows exactly where i am and what my intentions are. For school buses and trailer trucks, staying visible helps them know where to point their vehicle if a tight spot is upcoming. I have found operators of A & B class vehicles to not only be more adhering to the law, but also more thoughtful around cyclists.

I am not sure if this should be made part of motoring law, but it is at the least some sound operating procedure that has kept me safe for many years.

- Andy

jfowler85

Tortured reading? Thank you for the rather empty subjective literary assessment of my online forum post. Stick with your day job, I'm sure it pays you more than critiquing others' writing. If you are so qualified to falsify my claims with a simple retort which offers little to no substance, then by the same virtue your statements are equally as false. Your definition of "going after someone" is terribly askew if this definition includes the passive act of writing on an internet forum (perhaps Dateline could do a segment on "online cycling forums bullying"). Granted, then by the same token my definition of "combating" something is also off base, but then you see we are developing a scale and context here, which you seem to misinterpret or miss altogether. I'm sorry you are offended of my "going after" cyclists by making a written statement. Perhaps you have a vision that I am exacting physical revenge against law breaking cyclists a la Tonya Harding? That's just plain amusing.

jfowler85

Scranus...ha! Nice.

spare_wheel

one of my favorite situations is encountering a VC fred plodding along right smack in the middle of an 11-12 foot vehicle lane. passing them *safely* and *legally* with 4+ foot clearance on the right is a complete hoot.

jfowler85

I've also spent some time in SF and I would have to say I nearly completely disagree with you that the majority disregard lights and stops, but I do agree with you that it is a problem, and that it is not worth just sweeping under the rug which seems to be a common thing around here. Funny how people cherish living in a relatively safe society until is comes time for them obligate themselves philosophically to the same standard which keeps their society safe.

spare_wheel

please cite evidence that treating stops or reds as yields decreases public safety.

*crickets*

jpatkinson

It isn't a question of public safety. It's an issue of public perception. EVERYTHING in life is perception. The message received is the only one that matters.

If the average Joe driving his car doesn't respect the average Paul riding his bicycle, Paul is more likely to get hurt. Does anyone really think this isn't obvious?

spare_wheel

bollocks. stop sign non-compliance is just used as an excuse to rage about the weird "outsider" who is able to flow through traffic with ease while motorists are stuck in congestion. in fact, many of the cyclist behaviors raging cagers complain about are perfectly legal.

not too long ago the city of portland assessed comliance by motorists and cyclists at a stop sign. cyclists had a noncompliance rate of ~90% while motorists had a non-compliance rate of ~60%. do you really believe that the bike hating ragers will hate us less if we show the same level of compliance as motorists?