genec

You know the most ironic thing about this is that you want me to work on my own personal beliefs and attitudes, yet you accept the wrong beliefs and attitudes of the majority users of the road.

And personally I doubt 95% of motorists do know the rights of cyclists.

Helmet Head

Given that there is practically nothing we can be truly certain about, in most contexts "certain" should be taken to be mean "as certain as we can reasonably be in the given context".

John Forester

Well, no, randya, you have it exactly backwards. The statement that you claim so vociferously to be true says exactly what I have been arguing for months, that the public view of bicycle traffic is one of childish cycling and cyclist inferiority. That, of course, is also what so many of you are supporting with your advocacy for the bikeway system that embodies exactly that view of bicycle traffic. I can't help it if your own mistaken beliefs turn this into your emotional quagmire.

Helmet Head

Gene, I wish you to be happier and more comfortable in traffic. But I also want you to work on your own personal beliefs and attitudes so that I can benefit from what you learn going through that process (assuming you share with me), so I can use that to help others struggling with similar attitude obstacles.

I couldn't care less about the wrong beliefs and attitudes of the majority users of the road who are total strangers to me. It's just not in the pile of cr@p I care about, and I don't see any reason to put it in there.

invisiblehand

Well, I was being polite. Maybe I should write that it is your wild guess that bike lanes produce such an effect in any meaningful way.

John Forester

Don't stretch things beyond reason, not even for emotional effect, genec. The traffic system works well enough with the level of competence and obedience that exists. Sure, it could be better, that's not an issue with respect specifically to cycling. What is important is that cycling in the vehicular manner is the best way to get around town by bicycle, and there is no particular reason to spend one's time complaining about the few errors in some misguided effort to advocate views and programs contrary to vehicular cycling.

Helmet Head

Well, I take issue with that. The claim in question is: "by building bike lanes we are certainly encouraging motorists to feel that bicyclists don't belong on the part of the streets used by vehicle drivers, and are reinforcing these notions."

The undeniable fact that people yell "get in the bike lane" at bicyclists on roads without bike lanes, much less on roads with bike lanes, alone supports this claim as being far more than a wild guess.

The reluctance of bicyclists to leave bike lanes, even when it's the safe, reasonable, legal and practical thing to do (particularly at intersection approaches), also supports it.

ghettocruiser

Ya know, I've never had that yelled at me. I've had "get on the sidewalk" a few times, and "get off the road" a whole bunch of times, including by pedestrians on the sidewalk.

However, I have heard drivers yell "get off the road" at other drivers at least as often as I have heard it yelled at me.

I think strange behavior by drivers and pedestrians supports no claim.

genec

John when motorists break the laws and act in a dangerous manner that threatens me... then I feel the traffic system is not functioning well enough.

That is the key to my rants here about motorists. I can and do act in a manner well according to those laws you mention, and have been threatened by motorists because of it.

I do not find that acceptable. Would you?

Helmet Head

I don't consider Los Angeles to be an example of a high density area. NYC, Chicago, London, Paris, San Francisco... yes. But the Southern California urban sprawl of L.A.? Nope.

I don't think motoring would have to have been limited by government as much as motoring should not have been supported by government as much as it was, coupled with government not limiting population density with Draconian zoning laws. I think supply and demand would have managed quite well without all this "help" from government zoning and over-building of motoring infrastructure (thus subsidizing motoring and giving it an unnatural advantage over other transportation alternatives).

Many people who live in cities in which government did not subsidize motoring infrastructure, like Paris, London, NYC and San Francisco, don't even own cars. Sure, that's because much of that infrastructure was built before cars, but there no telling how L.A. and other post-motoring areas would have evolved without the zoning and motoring subsidies.

Helmet Head

The key to your rants here about motorists is that you choose not to accept that motorists are human beings, glorified animals with arguably too much intelligence for their own good, and that there is no way you're ever going to change that.

Of course they are going to occasionally and even regularly break the laws and act in a dangerous manner, just as surely as hyenas will occasionally and even regularly eat their own. Why would you choose to find the inevitable to be unacceptable? You may as well choose to find gravity to be unacceptable.

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone actually assaults you, that's different, and certainly unacceptable. But the innocent and predictable though irresponsible incidents of inattention, the harmless expressions of impatience and frustration, why choose to give them the power to irritate and annoy you with that stuff?

randya

the emotional quagmire is yours alone. 'the public' by and large means motorists, so you've once again confirmed the need for public ~ e.g. motorist ~ education.

TRaffic Jammer

Have you forgotten that they are driving tons of metal? Irritate and annoy? What about maim and kill due to inattention. You keep adding fuel as to why motorist education is so desperately needed.

Helmet Head

Yes, irritate and annoy. Gene allows their inevitable inattention and errors to irritate and annoy him.

I reject the notion that we are sitting ducks out there able to be squashed at any moment by an inattentive, scofflaw and/or ill-educated motorist. I, for one, ride in accordance with best practices that are designed specifically to keep me safe (to a reasonable degree) from those kinds of inevitable encounters which are par for the course.

The guy who intentionally wants to kill me? Yeah, I'm vulnerable there. But that's homicide, to which we're vulnerable everywhere, and not what we're discussing here.

Helmet Head

Again you use the word "need".

And if that "need" is not met, then what?

randya

less cyclists on the road due to safety concerns, and more unnecessarily dead and injured cyclists at the hands of misinformed and incompetent motorists.

invisiblehand

Your experience is that motorist problems are almost nil. How could bike lanes produce a meaningful increase in negative experiences?

First of all, we don't need to go over the cognitive biases when we collect "data" by our personal observations.

Yelling get in the bike lane when there is no bike lane sounds silly ... doesn't it? How do you differentiate between a comment of opportunity and one that represents a change in attitude? Moreover, you have a censoring problem here. You don't know how many people think that bicycles do not belong on the road but accept a bicycle's presence when there is a bike lane.

Similarly, with the cyclist who is reluctant to leave the bike lane, how do you differentiate between the curb-hugging road/sidewalk cyclist who would rarely use lateral positioning from the "VC stud" who would otherwise be sliding left and right with aplomb? In other words, it would be difficult to differentiate between a change in attitudes due to a bike lane and a simple change in who is riding on the road.

EDIT: In reference to "nil" ... I think that is my interpretation of what you wrote as opposed to something you explicitly stated.

TRaffic Jammer

Then we have more yutzs driving around with a headfull of incorrect and potentially hazardous notions. Whereas if they are educated when they are getting their licenses and reinforced in the exams, and touched upon by say traffic schools, law enforcement, and PSA's, the attitude of entitlement behind the wheel and the "it's my right to drive" ideas may start to fade. In order to ease the weirdness on the road, I think adjusting the one's doing the damage seems logical. As above this could lead to more people being willing to get on the bike, and less dead ones on the side of the road. This isn't just a cyclists' issues either, pedestrians are routinely being mowed down by texting, cd changes, failure to acknowledge crosswalks, etc etc etc and the list goes on..

Helmet Head

Do you really think more motorist education would make a significant difference in motorist attitudes and behavior towards cyclists?

It's tempting to compare the treatment we get here to Europe. But the culture is totally different there. If the driver is not a bicyclist, he probably used to be, and probably knows and cares for people who are. They have an inherent link to bicyclists in that culture that we just don't have here, and that's why they have and show more respect for bicyclists. All the education in the world can't create that in our culture.

genec

You are right... I will from now on ignore them and act in the same rude manner they act.

I will no longer care about my fellow man on bike or car. Excuse me for trying.

Helmet Head

My reference to motorists yelling "get in the bike lane" refers mostly to what others report, though it does happen to be supported by my own experience (a few years ago a guy on a sidewalk yelled "get in the bike lane" to a bunch of us riding down a road with no bike lane).

Again, that's not what I'm using. This is precisely why I created the poll I referenced earlier. Now, maybe all these people responding to the poll lied. So, yeah, I'm assuming they were truthful. Are you challenging that assumption?

invisiblehand

I should add that there is a lot of wiggle room between wild guess and certainty. "Wild guess" is too strong in the uncertain direction. But I have doubts that bike lanes produce meaningful negative changes in driver attitudes.

randya

Absolutely

genec

So you for one... expend the extra effort to make up for the careless and rude, unlawful behavior of others, that in kind, selfishly take advantage of your situation.

Sounds to me like you are the one "allowing others."

So that is what you want me to do?

And regarding the "homicidal" guy... uh try toning it down a bit and then re-examine your beliefs... try that the driver is not intentionally homicidal, but acting in a manner that has the potential to kill you, and if they do, you just become the statistical "I didn't see him." You are just as vulnerable there. (much like the thief that stole your bike... you were vulnerable... as you indeed are not perfect, and therefore cannot "prevent" everything.)

TRaffic Jammer

to the question... Hell yes.
To the comparison.... you'll never know, if you never try. Education can be a wonderful thing.

Remember... "opps I didn't see you" can kill, and not just one person. This isn't even taking bad attitudes or drunks into the equation, just inattentive.