filtersweep

I really don't want to ride like cyclists are a whiny, oppressed minority---

It sounds like you are unreasonable in your expectations. The driver apologized---- then you need to let it go. Usually a driver will threaten to kill you. What did you really expect?

sggoodri

I wonder if automobile occupants feel cornered when confronted, particularly if they are stuck in traffic. Feeling cornered might result in a more aggressive response as a defense mechanism out of insecurity.

Problems like this are why our bike club encourages cyclists to use the city's road rage hotline to vent about this sort of thing. The police will contact drivers and talk to them if possible.

Roughstuff

Hehe...I've had similar events in alberta in the rockies. I am willing to accept a ride downhill, if the conditions merit it. But it is my obligation to get to the top of the pass under my own power..sunwapta be damned!


(1) Thats right, there are some dudes.....and unfortunately they are the ones who have captured the cycling agenda (esp in urban areas) and have defined the cyclist in the eyes of other roadway users. The billions of miles of cycling goodwill by organizations such as Bikecentennial vanishes in the stupidity of a single Critical Mazzholes ride.

(2) Bicycles are not 2ndary users because 'cycling is hard' in your or any other city. They are 2ndary users because they lack the VERY ITEMS that make being on the roadway a safe(r) experience...turn signals, brake lights, backup lights, stall lights (all the same lights of course; and back ups don't apply to bikes of course); as well as the numerous safety features which automobiles and trucks have...seat belts, air bags, etc. Much the same (but not all) can be said about motorcycles, who often use the same childish terms (cagers, etc) to refer to motorists.

(3) Well enough said.


roughstuff

slagjumper

I passed a Porche last week. It was such a joke. The guy was going about 25 MPH , (becuase of traffic). I was behind him and he saw me in the mirror and zoomed up about 50 feet, only to catch the exaust of the car in front of him as I passed in the bike lane.

Thanks LEM for the video. That would make some great PSAs!

All radical means to me is someone who is interested in expediting the change of the status quo. So Bush is being somewhat radical when he pushes for the truncation of the right to privacy.

I would like rapid change in the status quo regarding many motoring issues. Road design, realocation of road resources to benifit urban cycling, speed limit reductions, redlight and stop cameras, black boxes in cars used for law enforcment and insurance purposes, increase in minimum driving age, more jail time for DUI, mandatory BAC interlocks, smaller engines, smaller vehicle gross wieghts, mandatory re-testing every 2 years after the age of 65, fees for driving in conjested DT areas, stopping the magistrate from giving ticket fine reductions and on and on.

sggoodri

Is secondary status the fault of the cyclist for not using these higher energy and crash absorption technologies, or the fault of the culture for marginalizing those who do not use these technologies?

-Steve Goodridge, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (not a luddite)

Roughstuff

I can't really answer your question as it is posed. What I mean to imply is that with vechicles, there are many features which make it clear what the motorist is doing, or will soon BE doing. Using these signals (and some, like brake lights, are automatic) rarely, if ever, requires the driver to remove his hands from the all important steering mechanism. With bicycles these signals, if they exist (and they don't, because a bike is a simple thing) this is not the case. To use a hand signal, you have to remove your hand from the bars....at the very moment you probably need to have them there the most.

And vehicles are getting even BETTER technologies in the near future...brake lights that show the intensity of the braking; warnings when you are approaching the vehicle in front of you too quickly, etc.


And please no cackling about how many motorists don't use their signals. It is hypocritical for cyclists who have none, to carp about a few who don't use theirs.

Similarly, vehicles have mechanisms in them to protect them from the consequences of their own and OTHERS neglect. Cyclists have voluntarily decided to enter a highway without these protections. Just as some drivers don't use their seatbelts or disable airbags, this is their choice...and choices, as all luddites and radicals forget, have consequences.


roughstuff (Should be PhD but i told my committee to go F**K itself, so I am not a luddite, but I am somewhat of a crudite! )

sggoodri

Sure, but I think we want to be careful not to hold negligent drivers to a lower standard just because some, or even most, road users use crash absorption technology.

I know I'm less safe leaving my house every day without a bullet-proof vest, but I don't think that reduces the validity of my complaint about gun violence in the streets.

Different vehicles have different advantages and disadvantages. I think in a free country, we have to be vigilant in protecting equal rights - meaning equal status - on the roads despite different severity of outcomes when something goes wrong.

Roughstuff

True...but I am not saying or doing that. A vehicle has mechanisms to prevent your FROM consequences of neglect by negligent drivers. A bicycle has far, far fewer such mechanisms, if any.

Barking about rights though is a red herring. No one has a 'right' to drive. It is a privilege. There is no more equal 'status' on the roadway for cyclists than there is equal status for midgets on a football team or basketball court.


roughstuff

sggoodri

Competitive sports participation is an elective meritocracy by definition. Public road access for the traveling public on a first come, first-served basis is an essential liberty, an inalienable right if you will, with legal recognition going back at least as far as the Magna Carta.

In order to equitably protect the travel rights of the public, the greater regulatory burden has always been placed on those people who choose to operate vehicle types that pose the greater danger to other members of the public. If some people are unable or unwilling to fulfill the legal responsibilities that go with the privilege of operating a motorized vehicle, they can instead exercise their right to travel by non-motorized means.

Mr. Underbridge

That rocks! I'd have probably done it just for fun.

frymaster

here is a picture from a morning commute in beijing, one of the larger cities on this planet.



obviously bikes here are either a primary mode of transport or at least a very strong secondary. and all without having the features of motor vehicles like brake lights, turn signals and airbags.

so why is this? well, lots of reasons, many of them economic, but the continued success of bikes in china in the face of increasing affluence can be boiled down to two things. first, culture. there is a strong culture that emphasizes bicycling. it's considered 'normal' and everybody does it. when everyone is on a bike it becomes a more comfortable and safe activity to cycle yourself.

the second reason is infrastructure. see that road? it's a bike path. compare that to your local mbp (if you're lucky to have one). if the infrastructure is set up to be bike-friendly, more folks will bike. my mom is *not* going to roar down 12th ave, jockying between f150's to squeak around the dump trucks backing out onto the road. but she *would* ride down this smooth, wide mbp.

so, again, to make biking a serious part of urban transportation we need to make it fun (culture) and accessible (infrastructure and culture).

Roughstuff

Very true and very impressive. I would like to point out though, that sales of automobiles in china are soaring as people become more wealthy and their time/convenience/comfort of travel becomes more important to them. In addition, this is a massive bike lane, not an area where bikes and cars are sharing the road, which is what the issue in most western countries like the US is about.

Dollar for dollar, for me the best investment for cyclists is to expand the shoulders of roadways. To me this is the 'bike lane.' Cars should be infrequent visitors to this lane; and bikes should be infrequent visitors to the main lane of traffic.

roughstuff

JohnBrooking

Steve, thanks for once again eloquently expressing my own viewpoint! :-)

I'll add: I accept that I have less protection in a crash than a car, but I do not accept that I am a secondary road user. Secondary road user implies that the cars' need for convenience outweighs my right to the road. However well or badly that works out in practice, I will not accept it in principle.

And by the way: Cyclists have turn signals, they're called hand signals, and I use them whenever other traffic may be impacted by my move, and I am able to take a hand off the bar temporarily. (And if you really want, you can buy real turn signal lights for bikes, too.)

Roughstuff

Which was exactly my point, thanks. You have to take your hand off the steering mechanism just at the point when you may need it the most. This is the whole reason why hand signals for vehicles were abandoned a few trillion passenger miles ago.

I like your comment, "and I am able to take my hand off temporarily. " So if you can't, then signaling becomes an option. Would you like it if signaling was made optional for cars, too?

I have seen turn signals on bikes, but they don't stand out much in the daytime. Nighttime would be much better I imagine.

roughstuff

Bekologist

all bicyclists should practice steering a bike one handed thru all but the most challenging turns at speed. I think some practice is in order, roghstuff

Roughstuff

Ok...i will try those, as I ride on many rural roads and yes, I feel vulnerable when I have only one hand on the bars. It is a skill I haven't developed. Also (this point has come up in previous threads) a quick hand signal, then returning that hand to the bars, can be just as effective as one prolonged turn as you describe.

roughstuff

Boss Moniker

That's a commute? Man, that's utopia! But none of them are wearing helmets

Roughstuff

I'm wondering...could something like this be done in big cities by closing roadways or maybe half of two roadways (one way in each direction) to all but bicycles and pedestrians on a rotating basis? Its utopia because the bikes don't have to 'share the road' with anyone except themselves. Has this ever been tried in the US or Europe? (I know there have occasionally closures, but I am talking about a systematic plan.)

roughstuff

sggoodri

Closing streets to motor traffic has resulted in mixed results in the US; usually it chokes off businesses on the street that depend on customers who prefer convenient automobile access (this can include a wide range of businesses including restaurants, banks, and retail). In other places where an adequate critical mass of pedestrian and cycle traffic, the closure creates a more enjoyable space that attracts more business. The former case is common in less dense areas and where there aren't many residents downtown; the latter case is usually a denser city with a lot of residents living in the downtown.

Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, NC was closed to vehicle traffic in 1977 to create a pedestrian mall, which the business community there wanted, but eventually many of the businesses failed due to inconvenient access by motor vehicle, which an increasing number of customers depended on. Although it was pretty during the day, it became deserted and a bit scary at night. The road was recently reopened to traffic with much fanfare, and political support from the business community.

Some communities have experimented with closing a street to through motor traffic, but leaving barricade openings for through bicycle traffic. (Motor traffic can only travel short segments and then must detour) These are sometimes called "bicycle boulevards." They are better for businesses in most cases than complete road closures. Getting the intersections with priority roads to work adequately for cyclists can be an issue when the non-priority route is closed to motor traffic.

Roughstuff

I figured it would be a big "sometimes it works, sometimes not."

But I wonder about closing the road on only one side and making that the bike fare; and of course the next parallel road would be closed to be one way the opposite direction. Then, you still have auto access (though less parking). In addition, by rotating the roads you can share the burden of lost business, if it comes to that. Still...tough to imagine it not having negative impact.

roughstuff

yes

Yeah, because one hand is on the cell phone, and the other is on the french fry. The knee is being used to friction turn the wheel. There was one non-signaling car and one fake signaling car on my short ride this morning. So, signals on a car need to be taken with a grain of salt. Oh, and the fake signaler was on the phone.

In addition, despite all of the very impressive safety features of cars, they are not much safer today than in year past. See Smeed's law for the explanation.

But this whole argument is pointless. If a driver runs down a bike. The biker is not at fault for failure to use 'proper' safety measures. The biker is using appropriate safety measures for the mode of travel. The biker is not a 'secondary' road user because of some lack of technology. They are a secondary road user, because many people feel that 'might makes right,' and that they are more important than everybody else.

Roughstuff

Yikes that IS scary! Like I say often though I run into drivers like this once in a blue moon. I know many people who won't use a turn signal when in a turn lane already...but thats about all I notice.

Roughstuff

yes

It's pretty common here. In addition to those offenses on my two mile ride this happened:
I'm in a turn lane at a red turn arrow. Lady pulls up next to me in the left of two through lanes with her left blinker on to turn left and just waits there, despite her green light. A guy in a jacked up truck comes up behind her and lays on the horn non-stop until the through light turns red. Now, I don't know why the lady in the car was in the wrong lane, or why she didn't just go through and turn left later. I also don't know why the truck driver didn't go into the right lane and go through. Both were selfish, though. It was really a pretty comical standoff.
Also on this ride, several drivers rolled a stop sign, and one guy peeled out from a stop, and turned left in the wrong part of pavement so he didn't have to wait for me to clear the intersection. So here (LA suburbs), there are loads of horrible drivers, and cyclists are definitely 2nd class road users.
Drivers are not 1st class due to any superior signaling technology in their cars or due to better habits. They are 1st class, b/c they have a me first attitude. When confronting other cars, they do it as equals, and it sometimes leads to a stand-off. When they confront a cyclist with their me first attitude, they do it with a might makes right standpoint and treat the cyclist as a 2nd class citizen.
I should note that the vast majority of people in cars here are very nice and courteous. It's just the few who don't understand that their rush is a reflection of their own failure to organize their life. It is not an excuse to drive like an idiot.

closetbiker

Yup, very few people in the world do. It's an unusual thing to do.

I find confronting someone on the road a very dicey proposition, but sometimes you have to say something if you have a chance.

Sounds like the driver got it, but maybe if he didn't you can relate to the driver something he/shes more likely to understand the position he/she put you in.

Mention it's like if he tried to go through an intersection in the curb lane and a truck decided to make a right from the left lane at the last minute without looking. Maybe he/she would understand the position he/she put you in.

I don't think it's too radical to expect the driver to yeild to your right of way