Exactly! That's the way I saw it -- this young man, who should be on top of the world riding in God's Country, is incensed and flipping off someone's Grandmother, because she ... legally yielded to a pedestrian?

J.F, Up until the bolded portion of your quote, you seemed rational and to understand traffic engineering... Important point, both cyclists and motorists are people, therefore they do stupid things... The different modes will result is different poor behaviors. So you list five categories you "studied". Here are a few categories for motorists. 1) speeding 2) following too closely 3) changing lanes without providing sufficient room to other vehicles 4) changing lanes without looking 5) driving while distracted (cell phones, passengers, make-up, etc) and many more... The bottom line is that there isn't likely to be any statistical difference between poor operations (in numbers/percentages) between modes, since the same moronic people are utilizing both modes.

Further, your cited "study" while interesting is hardly conclusive. From my reading of your article you are basing your statistics on very small samples (a few hundred) that were performed. In other words they are not statistically significant... other than for your obvious preconceptions.. Oh, and btw, collisions are very numerous. indeed in most metropolitan areas portions of the network get chocked on an almost daily basis from collisions...

Genec, appears to have an axe to grind against motorists, while yours appears focused on cyclists... Doesn't really matter, other than this forum is best used to improve the behavior/education of cyclists. Which appears to be the point of the thread the OP started.

Cyclist / UPS driver / police incident
 

I had previously posted this anecdote about a cyclist who had a 911 call inducing tantrum because a delivery truck had legally parked in a bike lane:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-on-own-petard

Myrridin suggests that I "studied" these five behaviors. That is not so; I observed all the traffic behaviors performed by the subject cyclists, and these emerged as the predominant errors. Was the sample size small? It was sufficiently large that the different rates noted in different locations were statistically significant at the 95% level, and in most cases at the 99% level. Behaviors with less significance were not noted in the text.

Are motorists equally incompetent? I don't consider speeding to be an error in competence, because speed limits are so poorly set. Following too closely; what might be that proportion? Sure, there are phenomenal freeway multiple crashes where the effect of one crash propagates backward up the stream of traffic faster than motorists can react. But I think that following too closely is not as prevalent as the error rates I found typical of cyclists. Changing lanes without providing sufficient room for other vehicles? I don't know what this means. Causing the now following driver to slow down to open the gap? Is this a dangerous error, of just the result of congestion? Changing lanes without looking. That's clearly dangerous, and it is an error that cyclists commit also. The observed cyclist error rates of 95% in Palo Alto, 100% in Berkeley, and 93% in Davis are clearly far above the motorist error rates, simply because of the small number of motorist crashes so caused as a proportion of the number of lane changes made by motorists.

In any such study, while the number of collisions of any one type is important in working out a crash reduction strategy, when considering the competence and training of drivers the more important statistic is the proportion of errors, or error-caused crashes, in the total number of movements made that could cause that type of crash.

You didn't document the statistical analysis (of confidence) in your report, so no one is able to confirm (or deny) your claims that your samples were "large" enough or even what you mean by large enough. For instance your study was only of four California communities. Yet you are clearly generalizing that to all cyclists (or at least implying that)... Even if your samples were the entire population of those four communities that wouldn't be a large enough sample to describe all US cyclists at any rational confidence level...

Oh, and for clarification, changing lanes in a manner that requires the car in that lane to immediately brake in an abrupt manner is both dangerous and illegal--yet I observe that behavior on roads in my area all the time. Incompetence means failing to follow the rules of the road... such as speeding which you so blithely dismiss.

So while I know of no valid study of such poor operating behavior, the fact that I (or anyone else) can venture out and identify numerous such acts indicates the prevelence is no less than what you claim for cyclists... Which is what a reasonable person would expect, since the same idiots are driving cars that are riding bicycles... Oh, and lets not forget that you also pointed to no "study" when you claimed that motorists are less likely to be "incompetent" then cyclists.

+1

Your post was refreshing Donger, mostly I think because you haven't wallowed in the argument here too much yet...

My report states that I used the statistical test of the formula below to determine the statistical confidence of the difference in proportions:
z= { p1 - p2 ** / SQRT { p(1-p)( { 1/ n1 ** + 1/ n2) **

myridin reports that "all the time" he sees motorists making lane changes that require the driver behind in the new lane to make an abrupt deceleration to avoid a collision. I rather doubt that myridin actually means 100% of lane changes are of this nature. The relevant ratio is that of the number of such lane changes divided by the total number of lane changes, and I suggest that this proportion, by my experience of motoring, is less than 1%. That is way below the proportion of lane-changing errors measured for cyclists.

It is correct that the measurements were made in university cities with bikeway systems of somewhat different types, but the cyclists actually measured were very close to a random sample of all the cyclists riding in those cities through the normal weekday on which the observations were made. Later I made similar measurements of cyclists who appeared to be adult commuters in cities to the south of Palo Alto, such as Sunnyvale, and the results did not appear to be different. The composite proficiency scores for the cities were:
Berkeley, 84%; Davis, 66%; Palo Alto, 58%, as in the report cited. This is on a scale in which I arranged the movements in order with total scores for each movement set according to my estimate of the danger involved, and with the worst allowable error at 70% of the total score for the movement. Therefore, population averages of less than 70% indicate what I consider to be dangerously incompetent cycling. The scores for the other non-university cities south of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and similar, at morning commuting hours, averaged about 55%. No significant difference.

It is correct that these N Cal observations are not a reasonable sample of the entire USA. However, I have cycled, and motored, in a great many cities of the USA, and I do not notice great variations in either motoring or cycling behavior. Oh, yes, I do consider Boston motorists to be the worst, but then they are dealing with probably the worst road system. And NYC is somewhat more frantic than typical. But I have seen no reason to suggest that cyclist behaviors in different areas are significantly different when dealing with similar types of facility.

I've had more than a few cyclists pass on the right, between me and the curb. I have to ask that if it is illegal for a car to pass another car in the same lane on the right isn't/shouldn't it be illegal for one cyclist to pass another cyclist on the right?

Also sadly on my regular ride I see way too many of the following:

a) cyclists blowing through red lights and/or stop signs without so much as slowing down
b) cyclists riding against the flow of traffic
c) cyclists riding "ninja style" i.e. no lights or reflectors and wearing dark colored clothing
d) cyclists riding through the parks at speeds better suited to running the Tour
e) cyclists passing pedestrians too close at speed (see above)
f) cyclists riding 3 or more abreast
g) cyclists riding all over the road doing "stunt" riding

No.

Categories of cyclist misbehavior & mistakes
 

I think cyclist misbehavior can be broken into major categories. I'm going to post (and invite all y'all to post) anecdotes and examples that fall into these categories:

- Breaking traffic laws in such a way to enganger self / others
- Failure to yield to others' (cyclists, motorists, pedestrians) right of way
- Riding through groups of pedestrians at high speeds
- Demanding that others follow laws while exempting self
- Provoking and escalating confrontations when one is in the wrong
- Provoking and escalating confrontations over trivial and inconsequential mistakes of others
- Attempting to associate cyclists with a victim's identity
- Blaming others for one's mistakes
- Behaving in such a manner as to reduce ridership and further diminish the public image of cyclists
- Engaging in tedious, sophmoric, circular, semantic arguments on internet forums (just kidding about this one)
- Failure to extend common courtesies expected of motorists
- Confronting cyclists one does not know about their choice to not wear a helmet
- Yelling at strangers about issues unrelated to one's own business
- Riding at high speeds into situations that one could reasonably expect to encounter unforeseen difficulties, and then raging at others when those occur
- Expecting free lunches and unprofitable prices from retailers
- Expecting manufacturers to extend new product warranty protections to cover used equipment purchases
- Expecting retailers and others to exhibit character/honesty/proactiveness/competence that far exceeds one's self's
- Raging at children and dogs for being present on bike paths
- Raging at other cyclists for passing on the left/right with/without announcing themselves quietly/loudly
- Demanding to be treated as a competent, functional adult while behaving as irresponsible child
- Impeding others while demanding that one not be impeded by others
- Rationalizing inconsiderate and unsafe behavior in the name of safety

This is just a partial list -- I'll edit this post as others come up

Yes, I noticed that, but there are other issues that render your claim to a 95% confidence suspect. Not the least of which is the objectivity of the person(s) determining what constitutes incompetent behavior. You are on the record stating that among other things (to paraphrase) "not practicing what YOU CALL vehicular cycling" is incompetent...

No "all the time" is not an indication of 100%; however, I rarely have a drive where an abrupt deceleration is not necessary due to motorists making improper lane changes.

Again you define proficiency in your own unique way. The issue of competence is best addressed as adherence to the transportation code... Something that seems to be sporadic among the ENTIRE population.

Yes, some places are worse than other, and specific forms of infractions vary, but I don't think it is much of a stretch to claim that all vehicle operators violate the traffic code at least part of the time... Therefore they are all incompetent... And despite your claim to the contrary I see no evidence that cyclists are any more (or less) incompetent then the drivers of motor vehicles...

Maybe not, but the rules about passing at safe distances apply equally to cyclists...

This is gonna be fun.

:popcorn

myrridin's complaint appears to be largely the definition of incompetent traffic behavior. He asserts that I define this in my own unique way, presumably without regard to the rules of the road. Well, look at the tables of error rates presented earlier. Changing lanes without looking behind (in a population without rear-view mirrors, this is easy to determine). Is that a violation of the rules of the road? I say so. Turning left without being in the proper starting position, either up against the centerline or in a left turn lane? Easy to see, and absolutely a violation of the rules of the road. Going through a stop sign without slowing or looking? Again easy to determine, watching the pedals turn without a hesitation, and no turning of the head. I say that violates the rules of the road.

In short, my definition of traffic incompetence is based on violations of the rules of the road. For information, the score sheet that I use is copied at the end of the report, so all can see what I consider to be errors and the scores that I assign for them.

Raging at children for being present on bike paths - Example
 

Keeping in the spirit of classifying cyclist boneheadedness into specific buckets, I now offer an example of "Raging at children and dogs for being present on bike paths"

An elementary school in Long Beach organized a running event last year at a public park. The event consisted of races of various lengths to be run on the sidewalks and roads than wind through the park. None of the paths were designated as dedicated bike paths.

The first race started with the bang of the starter's pistol and approximately 500 children grades K-3 ran down a path in one giant mob, directly towards 2 "adult" cyclists approaching on the path. As the cyclists met the group, they attempted to continue to ride into the mass, yelling at the children to "get off the bike path!", and "you can't be on the bike path!"

Of course, the children had not gotten the memo and afforded them all the respect they were due, i.e., none, and completely ignored them other than to swarm and bump around them on both sides. The yelling thing was not working out for them, but it was not for a lack of trying, as they continued to shout at the children who passed by. I don't know what angered them more -- having to stop for 30 seconds, or yelling at 500 children to get out of the way and have them promptly not move.

The attitude of the assembled parents and older students towards the scene was chuckling amusement, along the lines of would look at those ridiculous bike twits piss in the wind.

As B. Carfree pointed out in that thread, the cop actually misinterpreted the law or cited an outdated law. The cyclist was right (though probably didn't go about it in the most civil or helpful way).

CVC 21211 sets out the exceptions to vehicles that can stop in a bike lane. UPS trucks ain't on the list: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21211.htm

Hey guys, I said to give examples of cyclist misbehavior, not engage in it directly. Or are you providing an example of "Engaging in tedious, sophmoric, circular, semantic arguments on internet forums"?

Just kidding!! I love you guys! Carry on!

(but on topic please -- on topic meaning amusing anecdotes that illustrate typical cyclist bonehead moves).

I add a little more to my discussion of cyclist competence. Myrridin has written that there should be no expectation of different competences between motorists and cyclists, because they are largely the same members of one population.

I won't quarrel about the slightly different populations of cyclists drawn from the national population; let's leave that to another discussion. But I disagree entirely with the assumption that equal degrees of incompetence should be expected of American cyclists and American motorists even if they are drawn from one population. The difference is in the training that they have received, both the official training and the training impressed upon people by the population in which they have been raised.

American motorists are expected to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; they are provided with some official training; society expects them to operate by the rules. But the opposite is true of American cyclists. American cyclists are not expected to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; government tries to prevent them from doing so; society tells them that obeying the rules is dangerous, difficult, and requires superhuman skills; the government's and society's bikeway program is based in the propaganda that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners without training; the government provides no training in obeying the rules of the road while riding a bicycle.

It is this difference that produces cyclists who, when driving a car, operate by the rules, but when riding a bicycle refuse to follow the rules. When I have given training courses to adult cyclists, I have often started by asking for a show of hands from all those who have motoring licenses; all show agreement. So I say, then I should have nothing to teach you about traffic cycling; you know what to do already. But, inevitably, once they are shown how to obey the rules while cycling, the typical answer is "I have learned so much!" In short, even for Americans who both motor and cycle, there is a great difference in how well they obey the rules of the road for each vehicle.

Interesting -- I had missed this -- thanks for the link. Looks like B. Carfree and you are right.

It seems strange to me that the exceptions seem kind of arbitrary -- newspaper deliveries OK, package delivery not addressed. Another thing that strikes me is this:

"No person may stop ... on a bikeway ... if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist. "

Since cyclists are not limited to ride only in the bike lane in California and can ride in the roadway as conditions warrant (I'm assuming this is right, correct me if I'm wrong) then having a vehicle parked in the bike lane does not "impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist". I'm probably reading this wrong, but it seems to allow vehicle parking in bikeways that are adjacent to streets, and in fact, that's what I commonly observe -- often bikelanes are filled with parked cars and I don't ever see tickets issued unless there are No Parking signs present. And it's a non-issue to me - I just ride on the street.

Forgive me if I have just engaged in a sophmoric, semantic argument!:lol:

My intention was to pass along information on how some of the CA Vehicle Code sections apply to cyclists and how bad behavior on both sides (cyclists AND drivers) influence how each group views the other. As you can see with the vehicle code sections that I mentioned, there is no specific definition as far as what a hazardous condition or what debris is. It's purposely vague because every situation is different and it is up to a REASONABLE person to determine what constitutes a hazardous condition or debris and what is not.

I see what you're saying, but that's not how any law enforcement authority I'm aware of has interpreted it. According to their reading, if you're blocking the bikeway and not fitting an exception, you're violating the vehicle code, even if there are adjacent lanes that the cyclist could, in theory, change into (yes, legally). Interpreting it otherwise would basically render the prohibition completely meaningless--anyone could block a bike lane with cars, signs, garbage, etc. at any time because there's always an adjacent vehicle lane. Courts tend to frown on legal interpretations that completely swallow the law and its intended effect.

So sayeth Lord Forester. For his acolytes, that's good enuff. For anybody with at least one foot in the world of reality, it is just so much hot air, inflamed rhetoric, and Forester Brand propaganda about "the government" and "society" .

So ILTB asserts that statements of fact are no more than religious propaganda, as if his assertion cancels the fact. This has been gone through many times before, and I stand by my statements of fact and the supporting evidence previously presented. If ILBT really wants to have a discussion, then he should present one of my original statements and reasonings (or more, I suppose) about the bicycle transportation practice and policy of American government and society, with his reasons for disagreeing with it (or them).

Until he does so, I consider that his debating practice is to argue that his disagreement with vehicular cycling is based on his claim that it is all religious, without any factual support for that claim. And to support his argument by presenting only erroneous exaggerations of my positions.

Well I always say you can tell a lot about people's driving/riding ability by the way they push a supermarket trolley.

That aside I thought I would do a little survey tonight.

I am a professional driver (bus driver) in a UK coastal town with a reasonably large university and a large further education college, and a huge language student population.

I waited until the streetlights came on and then counted the cyclists I observed. I didn't count helmets or riding styles but I did count lights (or the lack thereof).

I observed 43 cyclists in a 2.5 hour period, here are the results

1 = Ninja, 2 = Some Form of Lighting (see 3-8) 3 = Rear Only (Blinky), 4 = Rear Only (Solid), 5 = Front & Rear Blinky, 6 = Front Blinky & Rear Solid, 7 = Front Solid & Rear Blinky and 8 = Front & Rear Solid.

1. ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• (20)
2. ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••• (23)
3. • (1)
4. • (1)
5. •••• (4) One of these had 3 front and 3 rear blinkies.
6. • (1)
7. ••••• ••••• •• (12)
8. •••• (4) One of these had an additional blinky on his backpack.

As you can see the lit cyclists only just outnumber the ninjas

Based on what I encountered the other day at the local warehouse supermarket; far too many people pushing their "trolleys" into bad locations and blocking aisles, it comes as no surprise that to me that the majority of these folks are motorists. There was little in the way of orderly thinking being exhibited in that market.

As a cyclist I found that the easiest solution was to park my "trolley" well away from goods and displays and take advantage of my narrow profile to zip about and secure the items I needed. :D