Evidence of bike lanes reinforcing the notion
06-15-07, 11:19 AM
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
06-15-07, 11:20 AM
#2
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
https://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.
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.
06-15-07, 11:25 AM
#3
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Same link as previous, this comment is further down the page.
https://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingn...car_kills.html
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?
https://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.
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.
06-15-07, 11:39 AM
#4
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
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]
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]
06-15-07, 12:05 PM
#5
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Integrated, on-road bike infrastructure reinforces bicyclists' right to the roads in the minds of motorists.
I disagree with the premise.
I disagree with the premise.
06-15-07, 12:54 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
06-15-07, 03:05 PM
#7
Senior Member
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?
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?
06-15-07, 03:16 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
I disagree with the premise.
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.
06-15-07, 03:23 PM
#9
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
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.
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.
06-15-07, 04:26 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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?
How did that happen?
As for my shape, it's old age, I am 77 years old.
06-15-07, 04:40 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by genec
Now consider those motorists in an area without bike lanes... a variable you did not discuss...
06-15-07, 05:56 PM
#12
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
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.
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."
06-15-07, 06:15 PM
#13
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
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.
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."
06-15-07, 06:20 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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."
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."
That is why it is so important to emphasize vehicular cycling and its social implications.
06-15-07, 08:37 PM
#15
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
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.
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.
06-16-07, 06:39 AM
#16
On Sabbatical
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
06-16-07, 06:56 AM
#17
On Sabbatical
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
06-16-07, 07:05 AM
#18
On Sabbatical
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
06-16-07, 08:20 AM
#19
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
06-16-07, 10:02 AM
#20
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
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.
06-16-07, 10:46 AM
#21
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
06-16-07, 10:51 AM
#22
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
06-16-07, 10:52 AM
#23
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
That's why vehicular cyclists move out of the way whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so.
06-16-07, 11:33 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
06-16-07, 08:56 PM
#25
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
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
wrong, so wrong, dude. or do you mean "staying out of the way when safe and resonable to do so?"
NOT your little chicken little autophobic weave of
Originally Posted by Head
... vehicular cyclists mov(ing) out of the way whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-16-07 at 11:24 PM.