Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Evidence of bike lanes reinforcing the notion

    This thread is for citing evidence of bike lanes reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists, that it is inherently dangerous for cyclists to share the road with motorists, etc.

  2. #2
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingn...car_kills.html

    Posted by davefr on 06/12/07 at 9:19AM


    Yes, cyclists have the right to use the road.


    Yes, cyclists and cars need to obey all the rules and drive/ride safely. However I see plenty of cyclists disobey traffic rules just like drivers.


    However when cyclists choose to ride for recreation (vs commuting) it just seems like common sense to use some intelligence to choose safe routes. We pay a bundle for bikelanes. Why aren't these routes chosen?

    I see recreational cyclists using heavily traveled narrow roads. This is just plain stupid and unsafe.
    My condolenses to the cyclist and their family.

  3. #3
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Same link as previous, this comment is further down the page.
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingn...car_kills.html

    Posted by easternvi on 06/12/07 at 9:28AM
    This is a prime example of the bicyclists expecting the world to evolve around them and ignoring all common sense. I live in the eastern part of the state and frequently encounter bicyclists riding inside the white line on roads designed for motorized vehicles traveling at 55 miles per hour. They make no attempt to get out of the lane, and of course, if there is an accident it would be the driver's fault. Last fall just such an incident happened as I rounded a blind corner to discover a bicyclist about 2 feet inside the white line with another vehicle pulling a large trailer in the oncoming lane. The bicyclist never wavered though common sense should have prevailed to get out of the way. I managed to get stopped to avoid an accident but it involved locking up the brakes on my vehicle. If I had hit the bicyclist and killed him, I would probably be in jail today. Bicycles do not belong on roads designed for motorized vehicles with designated speed limits higher than 30 miles per hour that do not have an adequate shoulder for the bicyclist to ride on if needed.
    He doesn't mention bike lanes specifically, but there is a lot of weight given to being on one side or the other of "the white line". I wonder where that kind of thinking stems from? I wonder what reinforces that kind of thinking?

  4. #4
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here is an interesting reply to "the notion."

    Motor vehicle drivers need to remember Oregon is a concealed weapons state.


    Bicyclists may carry guns and can invoke their right to self-protection under Oregon law. In other words, an armed cyclist can shoot a motor vehicle driver if they believe that imminet use of unlawful physical force may be used against them.


    (For example, if you are riding on Cornelius Pass road, the motor vehicle drivers honk incessantly, and then swerve their vehicle at you. You now have the right to shoot to kill as you believe that the motor vehicle driver will use unlawful physical force to kill you using their multi-ton vehicle).



    ORS161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 22]

  5. #5
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Integrated, on-road bike infrastructure reinforces bicyclists' right to the roads in the minds of motorists.

    I disagree with the premise.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  6. #6
    Senior Member Denny Koll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    This thread is for citing evidence of bike lanes reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists, that it is inherently dangerous for cyclists to share the road with motorists, etc.
    It is dangerous to share the roads with motorists. The question is are bike lanes more dangerous.

  7. #7
    Senior Member hotbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    My Bikes
    a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike
    Posts
    2,557
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Road shoulders, or lane margins, whatever they are called where you live, should be a part of every road. Me, I like to ride on the white line, so if the shoulder is two feet wide or seven feet wide, it doesn't matter to me as a cyclist. (It does matter as a taxpayer, but that's another story).
    I like to be able to move over to the right if there is a truck coming up behind me, especially when there is traffic coming the other direction.
    And if there is a truck coming from behind AND a truck coming the other way, I get my sidewalls all the way to the kerb. If there is no kerb, I'm in the ditch.

    I have to thank the truck drivers out there. They are professional drivers, much more skilled than the average four-wheel driver. Do you realize that trucks are wider than cars? Not just by a foot or two, but THREE feet wider than a car. (8 and a half feet versus 5 and a half feet).
    Truckers have more skill than the automobilist, and that fact is plainly evidenced by the way they pass without a near collision.

    I don't believe in bicycle lanes. Any road shoulder will do.

    We should identify narrow roads, create a petition to have that road improved by adding a two foot shoulder and kerbs, and ask truck drivers to sign the petition.
    I think we as cyclists should ally ourselves with the truckers. The truckers want to see less cars on the road, so encouraging people to bike would work in their favor.

    Comments?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    Integrated, on-road bike infrastructure reinforces bicyclists' right to the roads in the minds of motorists.

    I disagree with the premise.
    This assertion is highly questionable. On what basis does it rest? I can think of at least three opinions by motorists and there are at least two kinds of rights involved in the assertion.

    Motorist A might think that cyclists should not be using the roadway.

    Motorist B might think that cyclists are grudgingly permitted to use the roadway as long as they stay out of the way of motorists.

    Motorist C might think that cyclists, at least when operating lawfully, are legitimate roadway users.

    Right #1 is the right to ride upon the roadway surface.

    Right #2 is the right to operate on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

    Now consider the possible effect of a bike lane upon Motorist A. He sees that now cyclists are allowed to use the bike lane in accordance with Right #!, but he would not change his mind about Right #2, because that goes beyond the bike lane area.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist B. He sees the bike lane stripe as confirming his belief that cyclists have to stay to the side of the roadway to avoid delaying him. That means no change in Right #1, and explicit continued denial of Right #2.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist C. He sees this as the official designation of a place for cyclists, and therefore as a denial of his earlier view of Right #1, as applying to the whole width of the roadway surface, and effectively officially denying Right #2, since that cannot be exercised totally within the bike lane.

    In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the bike lane. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.

  9. #9
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    This assertion is highly questionable. On what basis does it rest? I can think of at least three opinions by motorists and there are at least two kinds of rights involved in the assertion.

    Motorist A might think that cyclists should not be using the roadway.

    Motorist B might think that cyclists are grudgingly permitted to use the roadway as long as they stay out of the way of motorists.

    Motorist C might think that cyclists, at least when operating lawfully, are legitimate roadway users.

    Right #1 is the right to ride upon the roadway surface.

    Right #2 is the right to operate on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

    Now consider the possible effect of a bike lane upon Motorist A. He sees that now cyclists are allowed to use the bike lane in accordance with Right #!, but he would not change his mind about Right #2, because that goes beyond the bike lane area.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist B. He sees the bike lane stripe as confirming his belief that cyclists have to stay to the side of the roadway to avoid delaying him. That means no change in Right #1, and explicit continued denial of Right #2.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist C. He sees this as the official designation of a place for cyclists, and therefore as a denial of his earlier view of Right #1, as applying to the whole width of the roadway surface, and effectively officially denying Right #2, since that cannot be exercised totally within the bike lane.

    In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the bike lane. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.
    Now consider those motorists in an area without bike lanes... a variable you did not discuss...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
    John, I'm still curious about how you managed to develop that decidedly un-miniature, belt obscuring, belly given the fact that you are self-proclaimed cyclist.

    How did that happen?
    You don't see a belt because I do not wear a belt.

    As for my shape, it's old age, I am 77 years old.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    This assertion is highly questionable. On what basis does it rest? I can think of at least three opinions by motorists and there are at least two kinds of rights involved in the assertion.

    Motorist A might think that cyclists should not be using the roadway.

    Motorist B might think that cyclists are grudgingly permitted to use the roadway as long as they stay out of the way of motorists.

    Motorist C might think that cyclists, at least when operating lawfully, are legitimate roadway users.

    Right #1 is the right to ride upon the roadway surface.

    Right #2 is the right to operate on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

    Now consider the possible effect of a bike lane upon Motorist A. He sees that now cyclists are allowed to use the bike lane in accordance with Right #!, but he would not change his mind about Right #2, because that goes beyond the bike lane area.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist B. He sees the bike lane stripe as confirming his belief that cyclists have to stay to the side of the roadway to avoid delaying him. That means no change in Right #1, and explicit continued denial of Right #2.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist C. He sees this as the official designation of a place for cyclists, and therefore as a denial of his earlier view of Right #1, as applying to the whole width of the roadway surface, and effectively officially denying Right #2, since that cannot be exercised totally within the bike lane.

    In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the bike lane. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.


    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Now consider those motorists in an area without bike lanes... a variable you did not discuss...
    That is correct, I did not discuss the opinions of motorists who live in an area without bike lanes. However, would their opinions be different? I have assumed that almost any motorist in the USA knows that bike lanes exist. If that is so, I think that the opinions I described would apply, simply through the knowledge that bike lanes exist. The effect might be different for motorists who had never heard of the existence of bike lanes. What proportion of American motorists are completely ignorant of the existence of bike lanes? I don't know, but I suspect that it is small. I suppose that if a person were ignorant of the existence of bike lanes, then there would be no reason for him to change his opinion, whatever it is, about cycling on the roadway.

  12. #12
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    This assertion is highly questionable. On what basis does it rest? I can think of at least three opinions by motorists and there are at least two kinds of rights involved in the assertion.

    Motorist A might think that cyclists should not be using the roadway.

    Motorist B might think that cyclists are grudgingly permitted to use the roadway as long as they stay out of the way of motorists.

    Motorist C might think that cyclists, at least when operating lawfully, are legitimate roadway users.

    Right #1 is the right to ride upon the roadway surface.

    Right #2 is the right to operate on the roadway with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles.

    Now consider the possible effect of a bike lane upon Motorist A. He sees that now cyclists are allowed to use the bike lane in accordance with Right #!, but he would not change his mind about Right #2, because that goes beyond the bike lane area.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist B. He sees the bike lane stripe as confirming his belief that cyclists have to stay to the side of the roadway to avoid delaying him. That means no change in Right #1, and explicit continued denial of Right #2.

    Consider the effect of a bike lane upon Motorist C. He sees this as the official designation of a place for cyclists, and therefore as a denial of his earlier view of Right #1, as applying to the whole width of the roadway surface, and effectively officially denying Right #2, since that cannot be exercised totally within the bike lane.

    In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the bike lane. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.




    That is correct, I did not discuss the opinions of motorists who live in an area without bike lanes. However, would their opinions be different? I have assumed that almost any motorist in the USA knows that bike lanes exist. If that is so, I think that the opinions I described would apply, simply through the knowledge that bike lanes exist. The effect might be different for motorists who had never heard of the existence of bike lanes. What proportion of American motorists are completely ignorant of the existence of bike lanes? I don't know, but I suspect that it is small. I suppose that if a person were ignorant of the existence of bike lanes, then there would be no reason for him to change his opinion, whatever it is, about cycling on the roadway.

    And yet oddly enough, many motorists believe that cyclists do not belong on the roads and have no such rights... so therefore bike lanes must not, as you suggest, convey the notion that cyclists belong on the roads... or motorists do not understand bike lanes, or motorists simply do not care.

    I have spoken to many motorists "off line" (in situations where they did not know I was a cyclist) that have no idea that cyclists have "the same rights to the road."

  13. #13
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    In short, the only positive effect upon any motorist's view of cycling is upon the motorist who thinks that cyclists should not be on the roadway at all, and his change in view extends only to the width of the bike lane. I think that this is not to be considered an improvement.
    And yet oddly enough, many motorists believe that cyclists do not belong on the roads and have no such rights... so therefore bike lanes must not, as you suggest, convey the notion that cyclists belong on the roads... or motorists do not understand bike lanes, or motorists simply do not care.
    That is an odd statement to make in light of what JF wrote. How does "change in view [regarding where one believes bikes belong] extends [from completely off the road] only to the width of the bike lane" convey that "cyclists belong on the roads"?

    I have spoken to many motorists "off line" (in situations where they did not know I was a cyclist) that have no idea that cyclists have "the same rights to the road."
    Yet I'll bet the vast majority, probably all, treat me just like a driver of a vehicle whenever they encounter me riding my bike on the road. So who cares what they think? Especially since the only thing that is likely to change their minds on this matter is seeing more and more cyclists riding vehicularly. Sooner or later, they'll get used to it. But, I see no hurry in bringing that about, since in the mean time, I can live with a honk every few months, and otherwise consistently exemplary treatment by motorists of me.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    And yet oddly enough, many motorists believe that cyclists do not belong on the roads and have no such rights... so therefore bike lanes must not, as you suggest, convey the notion that cyclists belong on the roads... or motorists do not understand bike lanes, or motorists simply do not care.

    I have spoken to many motorists "off line" (in situations where they did not know I was a cyclist) that have no idea that cyclists have "the same rights to the road."
    The discussion revolved around what appeared to be a claim that bike lanes reinforced motorists' conception of cyclists' rights to the road. I think that the discussion, so far, rather dismisses that claim. The situation in America is distinctly different from the situation in Britain. When I talked to British motorists at roadside pubs when touring in England, they were astonished when I described American opinion of the rights and duties of cyclists. The English motorists all approved of cyclists having the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. As they said, if you don't operate by the same rules, you collide into each other. As you say, many American motorists have the opinion that cyclists really do not belong on the roadway. I suspect that the prevalence of this opinion varies according to the different social parts of the USA.

    That is why it is so important to emphasize vehicular cycling and its social implications.

  15. #15
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head

    Yet I'll bet the vast majority, probably all, treat me just like a driver of a vehicle whenever they encounter me riding my bike on the road.
    Meanwhile many other cyclists, myself included, in spite of riding in a very vehicular manner (typically right tire track, destination postitioning, proper signaling) find that they are often not treated like drivers of vehicles... but simply as some obstacle to be avoided at all costs, including situations that put the motorists at greater risk while in the action of such avoidance. Granted, by your terms, these incidents are in the minority, but they occur regularly enough for me to conclude that you simply are not observant.

    I can only conclude that your instance of "ignoring" those that may harass you has put you in a state in which you blank out any motorist that may be trying to convey their message to you or may be acting in a manner somewhat unusual for "driver of a vehicle."

    I note you did indicate "vast majority," implying that there are some motorists, in minority, which you simply chose not to discuss here as they are counter to your theories.

  16. #16
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We have the "notion" around here that cyclist don't belong in the road, except we do not have any bike lanes period.
    So maybe the "notion" is reinforced by bias and not the existence of the bike lanes themselves. Maybe the bike lanes just add fuel for the "notion".
    In fact, my grandmother thinks I am plain insane for riding my bike on the road and not on the sidewalk, and she has never left the city of Jackson, Kentucky and has never heard of a bike lane.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  17. #17
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    That is correct, I did not discuss the opinions of motorists who live in an area without bike lanes. However, would their opinions be different? I have assumed that almost any motorist in the USA knows that bike lanes exist. If that is so, I think that the opinions I described would apply, simply through the knowledge that bike lanes exist. The effect might be different for motorists who had never heard of the existence of bike lanes. What proportion of American motorists are completely ignorant of the existence of bike lanes? I don't know, but I suspect that it is small. I suppose that if a person were ignorant of the existence of bike lanes, then there would be no reason for him to change his opinion, whatever it is, about cycling on the roadway.
    This has already been discussed in another thread.
    Disagreed.
    I do not know the specifics of these laws which you have mentioned. But I do know this, from my own experiences. When I was a motorist, before I had any inclination of getting a bicycle or even cared about cyclist rights. I spent a few weeks in Englewood florida, just south of Sarasota. While there I saw bike lanes for the first time in my life. they ran right alongside the roads in which I was driving and had the bikelane symbols painted in them as well as standing signs along side of them. I easily knew what they were. But I would see cyclists outside of them. I never thought that they were "supposed" to use those lanes. I just knew that I "wasn't supposed" to use those lanes, or wasn't "allowed" would be a better term.
    I know I am just one person. But based on my own experiences, of a motorist who could give a rats ass about cyclists or their "rights", I would find it hard to accept that all, most, or even a vast majority of people feel the way you are saying here. especially people who live in areas where there ARE plenty of cyclists. Remember, I had never seen a bikelane before. But as I mentioned in another thread, common sense led me to believe that they could ride IN the road if they pleased, otherwise they'd not have been doing it as often as I noticed.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  18. #18
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    The situation in America is distinctly different from the situation in Britain. When I talked to British motorists at roadside pubs when touring in England, they were astonished when I described American opinion of the rights and duties of cyclists. The English motorists all approved of cyclists having the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. As they said, if you don't operate by the same rules, you collide into each other. As you say, many American motorists have the opinion that cyclists really do not belong on the roadway. I suspect that the prevalence of this opinion varies according to the different social parts of the USA.
    Why must people always try to compare and discuss the differences between America and other countries? Do you really expect not to find differneces? Do you really expect people to [b/not[/b] be astonished at the differences?
    OMG! You mean in Holland they put Mayo on potatos?!?! Those heathans!!

    Since we are going to discuss differences between countries and how all the others seem to be better than America, then let's invite the Taliban, members of the old and new Soclaists Party, and maybe some Communists into the discussion. Maybe they'll have input on how to make America a better place.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  19. #19
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yesterday I was 3rd behind in a line of motor vehicles waiting for some guy who was taking the lane. It was a pain in the butt and as soon as I had a chance, I pulled into the left lane to get around him.

    Bike lanes and my being a cyclist makes no difference. It's a pain in the butt to go 15 mph when you could be going 45.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  20. #20
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,811
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    The situation in America is distinctly different from the situation in Britain. When I talked to British motorists at roadside pubs when touring in England, they were astonished when I described American opinion of the rights and duties of cyclists.
    Who wouldn't disapprove of the bicycling situation in America if all they knew of it was an over-the-top description provided by John Forester? Does anyone really believe Forester would provide a well balanced unbiased view on any bicycling issue in which he has a specific agenda? Anyone besides The Messenger, that is.

  21. #21
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Meanwhile many other cyclists, myself included, in spite of riding in a very vehicular manner (typically right tire track, destination postitioning, proper signaling) find that they are often not treated like drivers of vehicles... but simply as some obstacle to be avoided at all costs, including situations that put the motorists at greater risk while in the action of such avoidance. Granted, by your terms, these incidents are in the minority, but they occur regularly enough for me to conclude that you simply are not observant.

    I can only conclude that your instance of "ignoring" those that may harass you has put you in a state in which you blank out any motorist that may be trying to convey their message to you or may be acting in a manner somewhat unusual for "driver of a vehicle."

    I note you did indicate "vast majority," implying that there are some motorists, in minority, which you simply chose not to discuss here as they are counter to your theories.
    Gene, i was referring to the "vast majority, probably all" of those you've talked with.

  22. #22
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    We have the "notion" around here that cyclist don't belong in the road, except we do not have any bike lanes period.
    So maybe the "notion" is reinforced by bias and not the existence of the bike lanes themselves. Maybe the bike lanes just add fuel for the "notion".
    In fact, my grandmother thinks I am plain insane for riding my bike on the road and not on the sidewalk, and she has never left the city of Jackson, Kentucky and has never heard of a bike lane.
    There is no question that the notion that cyclists do not belong on roads with motor traffic existed long before the first bike lane was striped. So far as I know, no one has ever suggested otherwise.

    But yes, some of us do believe that bike lanes just add fuel for the "notion", and I see evidence for that all the time. But I'm biased.

  23. #23
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    Yesterday I was 3rd behind in a line of motor vehicles waiting for some guy who was taking the lane. It was a pain in the butt and as soon as I had a chance, I pulled into the left lane to get around him.

    Bike lanes and my being a cyclist makes no difference. It's a pain in the butt to go 15 mph when you could be going 45.
    Yes, it is.

    That's why vehicular cyclists move out of the way whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    Why must people always try to compare and discuss the differences between America and other countries? Do you really expect not to find differneces? Do you really expect people to [b/not[/b] be astonished at the differences?
    OMG! You mean in Holland they put Mayo on potatos?!?! Those heathans!!

    Since we are going to discuss differences between countries and how all the others seem to be better than America, then let's invite the Taliban, members of the old and new Soclaists Party, and maybe some Communists into the discussion. Maybe they'll have input on how to make America a better place.
    Stick to that which is relevant! We are not discussing socialism, Islamism, or anything except bicycling affairs. I am not in the habit of denigrating America, I love it and approve of it, but in the matter of bicycling affairs a large share of American public opinion has historically held that cyclists do not belong on the road. I contrasted this with the British view that cyclists belong on the road as drivers of vehicles, to show that such a public opinion is possible.

    It is rather funny, isn't it, that I get accused of thoroughly advocating the American militant motorist position at the same time I get accused of criticizing the complementary American cyclist-inferiority position. Maybe even by the same people.

  25. #25
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, Head, you've got it wrong.... vehicular cyclists STAY out of the way when safe and reasonable to do so, using speed and destination positioning to keep right of faster traffic, and use bike lanes when the space is safe and reasonable to do so,

    NOT your little chicken little autophobic weave of

    Quote Originally Posted by Head
    ... vehicular cyclists mov(ing) out of the way whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so.
    wrong, so wrong, dude. or do you mean "staying out of the way when safe and resonable to do so?"
    Last edited by Bekologist; 06-16-07 at 11:24 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •