SonataInFSharp

Hehe, the only car to give me trouble was my sister in law. That was fun.

Treespeed

+100, people who have hassled me in the past seem like they are already angry and unhappy before I appear in their live. That's why I ask them if they need a hug. Really throws them off.

V-Rock

My worst incidents where there was escalation have both involved young white males (one in a large pickup truck and the other in a large SUV), but I have had plenty of minor buzzings and horn honking and obscenities from all sorts. Fancy cars, crappy cars, big cars, small cars, red cars, blue cars. Young people, old people, girl people, boy people, fat people, skinny people.

If you have never ridden a bicycle on shared road; you just don't get it.

SonataInFSharp

My worst incidents (which really aren't that bad) are drivers in expensive cars in wealthier areas. Maybe it is because I am scared to notice the people in the 'hood or maybe I would just expect better behavior from wealthier (implied: educated) drivers?

Mr. Underbridge

I don't get that much static, but you do start to notice some trends.

First, obviously, are the distracted drivers. It would give me great pleasure to rectally implant one of those phones in its 'weaving all over the place' owner.

SUV drivers are definitely over-represented in the 'arsehole' category, based either on aggressive behavior or (more often) poor visibility in those beasts.

Porsche and BMW drivers are fun too - in my experiences they like to pass me really fast while revving the engine, but they're not much danger because they don't want to risk their paintjob.

I used to think Prius drivers were more likely to be clowns until I realized it's just one guy who keeps cutting me off on my commute route.

One thing I've noticed - truck drivers are very accomodating. Not sure if it's their recognition of their truck's lack of agility or sympathy for others who have trouble with cars, but they've always helped me.

Ed Holland

Dangerous drivers, in my mind might be categorised as follows:


1. Any driver using a (hand held) telephone. For what good the law will do, at least this will be illegal in CA next year. Whether many change their habits, we'll have to wait and see.
This is especially threatening at intersections because the driver cannot use both hands, so is often seen steering erratically through tight. Moreover they can be distracted and impeded from taking a proper look to their left. Several times drivers making a right turn to merge with the through road failed to yield the righ of way because they were busy on the telephone and neglected a proper look for traffic.

2. The clueless. Folks who don't signal, change lanes at random, forget about cyclists & cause "right hook" collisions or near misses.

3. Aggressive. Won't yield, drive in a threatening manner, buzz, intentionally cut off, shout insults etc.

Profiling these? that is hard and liable to be biased. I will say that there are so many drivers using cell phones that everyone sporting a handset behind the wheel becomes a suspect.

Ed

Keith99

This sums up my two "bad" groups. Let me first say that in any group I can think of it is a small minority that are a problem (but 5% is a very small minority and if 5% of ALL drivers were real problems few of us would choose to cycle).

My two bad groups are very shabby and very nice (read expensive) cars. Both of these are far too often a sign of someone not happy with their life. The shabby ones because the financial side of that persons life sucks. The nice ones because it is often a sign of someone trying to make up for other shortcomings. (Hmm wonder if the very worst are those in really nice cars that have overextended the owner, worst of both sides of this idea).

cycleup

Actually, there's good statistical evidence that SUV drivers *are* more likely to be 'arseholes' - there's a great study (which, of course, I can't find now :-) done for the auto industry that was quoted in "High and Mighty" about drivers of various kinds of cars. SUV drivers tended to be anti-social and vain, compared to drivers of other kinds of cars.

Of course, that's on average. Lots of SUV drivers are polite and some Prius drivers (as you point out) can be jerks. However, it's important to note that being hit by Prius (at city-ish speeds) is less likely to kill you than being hit by a Ford Exterminator.

noisebeam

The other drivers I most watch out for are usually on a bicycle. Most likely to do something unpredictable.

Al

Ajenkins

Driver profiling is a great way to stay alive. I do it all the time. Here's what's pertinent in my life:

1. pickup trucks, particularly those with a "pissing Calvin" or confederate flag decal on the back window. Of course, by the time you've seen that, it's already happened. (My other vehicle is a p/u, so it's not a not-me bias).

2. Honda chicks. If they aren't on the phone, they are doing their makeup, if not both. They have no idea where the heck they are at any given moment, much less what's happening on the road around them.

3. Mom's Green Mini Van. Also distracted, also in a hurry, I'm in their way and probably a fair amount of stored aggression. Bad combination. They either don't see you, or see you, hate you, and see a nice anonymous opportunity to be angry at someone.

Carusoswi

So, tell me how profiling helps keep you alive. You take care to avoid trucks with "pissing Calvin" or confederate flag decal on the back window . . . sometime after they pass you? I use a Third Eye mirror, but it doesn't pick up rear decals at all, and it isn't very effective at spotting chicks in Honda's or Mom's in mini vans of any color.

For cyclists and cycling safety, the idea of profiling doesn't seem very useful to me. In my view it represents just another means by which we can arbitrarily classify folks to amplify our own self esteem at their expense. I certainly don't see how it is a great way for a cyclist to stay alive. We cannot really recognize or evade those profiles we happen to dread until the danger is past or has already exacted its consequences.

Caruso

Ajenkins

Driver profiling is one of the methods taught by the Motorcycling Safety Foundation. Every bicyclist should read the MSF materials, as many of the safety issues are the same.

Driver profiling is a component of situational awareness; yes, it is obviously subject to error, but the error on this case is on the side of safety. If I'm prepared for unique behavior from a particular motorist but it doesn't occur, well great -- no harm, no foul. On the other hand, if the worst-case scenario does occur, my reaction time has been decreased by having already mentally prepared for this event and having a planned response.

Maybe *your* purpose in driver profiling is to bolster your ego. Mine is to help keep myself and other road users as safe as possible.

Ed Holland

The notion of driver profiling is less important than watching for any vehicle that is (even minutely) acting in an unusual manner. This can be, but is not limited to vehicles:

Travelling faster than other traffic
Travelling slower than other traffic
Moving erratically
Approaching rapidly from a side street
Slowing just in front of, or beside you
Approaching rapidly behind.

The key, in my experience, to self preservation on a bike is "observation and anticipation, anticipation, anticipation"

Ed

Carusoswi

I don't profile at all. My purpose in responding is to question just how, on a bicycle, you manage to profile in a manner that is beneficial to your safety. The point I was trying to make in the previous post is how you manage to size up vehicles approaching you from the rear in any meaningful way that can benefit your safety. I contend that you cannot do so, and, I imagine, most others here who so forcefully proclaim that they have more problems with this or that type of motor vehicle driver probably gather their information on each example sometime after that crucial moment when, if armed with some notion of the type of driver approaching them, they would take evasive action.

In reality, most drivers who give us problems approach us from behind. If we see them coming at all, we probably don't get a good enough look at them to make an accurate evaluation as to what profile we would likely categorize them. Whether or not personal profiling is even valid is a totally different issue.

So, if you wouldn't mind (and all reading material aside), how do you evaluate the drivers approaching you from behind so that you have this body of data on them so that you know which types cause you problems. All the reading material in the world won't aid you in determining the type of decal a profile member might have on display in his/her rear window or on his/her bumper when your only vantage point is from in front of their vehicle. From what observation do you derive that situational awareness about which you speak if the potential threat is approaching from your rear and wearing his/her "colors" on the back of his/her vehicle.

That was the point I was probing.

Can you respond?

Thanks.

Caruso

Mr. Underbridge

Not all danger comes from the rear.

Ajenkins

I don't worry too much about the drivers behind me because, statistically, they are a very low-percentage danger. Most auto-bicycle collisions are primarily due to the motorist turning left into the bicycle's path of travel, or secondarily, right hooks. My eyes are still good enough that in daylight conditions I can get a pretty clear picture of the car and driver in sufficient time.

If you had read my original post thoroughly, you would see I had already noted the difficulty in using rear-window decals in profiling. These were noted after the events.

For traffic approaching me from the rear, I use a rear-view mirror, and am very clear with my intentions regarding lane or directional changes. The only hassles I have had from that direction have been the usual scare tactic crap, and if you don't scare easily it doesn't really make much difference. None of those jokers have had the balls to get really close, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a beer can.

Carusoswi

Ok, if, for discussion sake, I accept your claim that most auto-bicycle collisions are primarily due to motorist[s] turning left into the bicycle's path, then, I guess you do your profiling from the front of the vehicle, and can check out rear window "flags" and rear bumper decals from that angle, then.

It would be curious to know from those who have offered profiles of drivers who they claim give them the most trouble whether, in their experience, those problem came from head-on encounters or from the rear. Except for one right hook that I experienced (not fun at all), all my problem encounters involved drivers who did or desired to overtake me from the rear. Fortunately, most of those encounters were more verbal in nature than physical.

I haven't taken the time to do any tallying, but, it seems to me that there are more accounts of fatalities and buzzings, close passes, etc. involving drivers passing cyclists from the rear than from those crossing the cyclists' paths while making left turns.

Personally, if left turning traffic is all I had to worry about, I'd feel pretty safe on the road. Even at 20-25 mph, I generally have a good view of oncoming traffic at intersections, and would not take a chance where there was left turning traffic by asserting my rights by buzzing through such an intersection at 25 mph.

We're talking about profiling here, not just about accidents. I would contend that, if you are riding fast enough so that you cannot avoid colliding with a left turning motorist, then, you would have come upon him/her much too suddenly to have been able to profile him/her. If the action is moving slowly enough that you have time to profile, then, there is very little danger of an incident of any kind, so, I doubt you'd even have an encounter or encounters at that slow pace to build any sort of impression about driver profiles.

I guess, basically, I think this whole notion of cyclists being able to profile motorists in a way that meaningfully increases the cyclist's safety is pretty much hogwash, and your post (I did read it carefully, several times) just more clearly pointed out the contradictions than most of the others.

. . . but, if profiling makes you feel safer on your bike (and you feel it keeps you alive), well, then, profile away.

Caruso