View Single Post
Old 07-04-14, 06:10 PM
  #129  
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206

Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Not a problem, sorry I forgot to reply to your inquiry. Just one of those things that slipped through as the thread ballooned in page number.

I mainly cycle around my home state of Montana (that's where most of my friends, business connections, and relatives are (listed in that order for a reason) remember I'm a transportation cyclist primarily not so much a pleasure cyclist) but have gone into neighboring U.S. States and Canadian Providences as well, in order of level of experience: Idaho, Northern (especially North-Western) Wyoming, Southern Alberta, South-Eastern British Columbia, Southern Saskatchewan, North-Western South Dakota, Western North Dakota, and Eastern Oregon.


The greatest area of risk for a cyclist in my state of Montana to experience deliberate "territorial aggression" against them while on the roads I would say is the rural open areas of western Montana down in an arc into the southern middle of the state about as far east as Bozeman, the lowest risk for cyclist encountering such deliberate "territorial aggression" against them while on the roads in Montana I would say is the rural open areas of eastern Montana up into an arc to the middle north of the state until you come to the eastern edge of Glacier National Park. All the small dots of urban areas, the small towns and the big towns both east and west sides of the state are halfway inbetween on the risk scale.

There are of course certain particular hot spots and cold spots I'm aware of specifically but generally over all that is how it goes across my State. Sad but true. Using that as my standard of comparison for neighboring areas I've also cycled. Idaho in general is like Western Montana, rural areas are equally high risk and the risk goes down to just middle level risk factor for deliberate "territorial aggression" against you as a cyclist whenever you get into an urban area. Northern Wyoming, North-Western South Dakota, and Eastern Oregon are pretty low risk in the rural open areas just like Eastern Montana and the risk goes up to middle risk factor not down when you get into the scattered little spots of urban areas. North Dakota used to have a similar risk profile to Eastern Montana but unfortunately with the fracking boom its gotten a risk profile more and more like Western Montana.

Now the three Canadian Providences I have experience with I have found a considerable striking absence of the deliberate "territorial aggression" I've gotten used too dealing with but I would say that the careless factor is higher. The Canadian motorists I've dealt with in those areas don't seem to be willing to engage in any deliberate "territorial aggression" towards cyclists trying to force them to get off of "their roads", they just don't seem to care. Which is a double edge sword that cuts both ways, they don't care that your there and use the road too but they also don't care about anyone but themselves either.


Long Story Short, if I were to offer advise to some touring cyclist who was going from east coast to west coast or vic-a-versa across the northern top of the U.S. they might be better served by ducking around Idaho, Western Montana, and North Dakota by either going up and over on the Canadian side or dropping down under through South Dakota and Wyoming. If they were touring through Montana from east to west I would strongly advise them not to cross the rocky mountain divide using Hwy-2 that crosses the continental divide along the south edge of Glacier National Park. The road infrastructure situation on that narrow winding mountain pass is not good for mixing both cyclist and motorist traffic together in a situation with highly territorial aggressive motorists, its one of the "hot spots" in my opinion that should be avoided. Even if they were to widen up that road to provide consistent wide shoulder edges even then it would not be the best choice due the territorial aggression levels in that area. Believe it or not one of the best passes to cross the continental divide on as a cyclist is to ride the wide shoulder edge of I-90 (totally legal in Montana) and cross the continental divide at the Homestake Pass. Yes, riding the shoulder edge of the interstate does take a certain adjustment in technique especially when it comes to wisely handling each of the over/under passes and the exit and entry ramp situations but over all more often then not when I need to cycle across the state from east to west that's the route I prefer to take and for the most part its of considerable lower risk then the alternatives both overall and specifically for not being the target of a "My road !!! Get OFF !!!" deliberate territorial aggression from some motorists.

In addition it should be noted that the primitive territorial aggression capability is deeply ingrained in the entire human species and automobile operators with a "cager" mind set everywhere can be found who believe the roads are exclusively theirs and have at least territorial aggression feelings towards all other public right of way users whether they by pedestrians or cyclists or even motorcyclists and yes even other automobile operators. It's just a matter of how deep and wide those territorial aggression feelings go and how willing they are to act on them and how much they fear any consequences for doing so that makes the difference. I've heard horror stories from other hot spots around the country as well, quite a few out of Florida to name but one other example. So its certainly not just a Montana or Western issue but I do certainly agree that this area is certainly warmer then other places some areas down right hot spots.
turbo1889 is offline