VTBike

It's a difficult problem for a community that is so diverse. What can be safely said is that the most vocal advocates represent the vast minority of cyclists. This is understandable, since the most vocal advocates are generally the people for whom bicycling is one of the biggest aspects of their lives.

Here is an example of the problem: I made it a point to observe who was using a bike path the other day. The users were mixed, but what struck me is how many children and senior citizens I saw on the bike path. The percentage of seniors and children was TREMENDOUSLY greater than the percentage on public roads. And I thought to myself how wonderful it was to see these people getting exercise and becoming more fit when they would not likely have done so had it not been for the bike path - and how important it is for children and seniors to be able to get some exercise. Yet there are numerous bicycling advocates who insist that bike paths are evil because those paths do not fit their particular needs.

There is no simple solution to this problem. However, there is a rampant problem of failing to acknowledge that what is desirable for one person may not be desirable for another. Until we begin to think of others, we will only hurt our overall success. If we can't balance our own needs, why should anyone trust us to balance society's needs?

mconlonx

Words are more than their dictionary definition; there's usually a cultural context. When used in media, words can be used to give subjects an editorial slant while maintaining a facade of objectivity. In this case, there were many terms which could have been used: cyclists, bicyclists, bicycle riders, riders, etc. But Inside Edition -- known for sensational journalism -- used the culturally loaded term "biker." The use was intentional.

So what was the editorial intent implied by the use of that particular word? It's not a culturally neutral word, it "others" cyclists as a less than desirable subset of the general population by lumping them in with the same term which has been used for decades to indicate thug gang motorcyclist 1%ers.

VTBike

Or could it be as simple as the fact that we use the term to describe ourselves?
https://www.bikevmb.com
https://www.cascade.org/node/16770
Boring Hill Biker Club : About
the surly biker | Cyclist. Teacher. Photographer. LEGO enthusiast. Realist.
Black Belt Biker | Adventure Cycling Association
Bamboo Biker Boys | Urban Velo

I-Like-To-Bike

Is "Inside Edition," a televised version of National Enquirer or TMZ? Cable or Network? Inquiring minds want to know.

RollCNY

@VTBike, that is a very reasoned answer, and even from my personal perspective, I pay little interest to MUP rules and use. The segment that you linked I assumed will be about Central Park behavior, which is as applicable to me as a manned mission to Mars.

In my mind, advocacy is a local issue, and needs to be a local problem. If a community wants more multi-use paths, that community should adopt a plan, with it's fiscal resources, to meet the plan. If it wants bike lanes, it should make them sensible for it's traffic patterns.

I guess I always view the "Share the Road" signs as not meant exclusively for cars, but for both cars and cyclists and every vehicle on the road. There seem to be many posts about rights, and entitlements, and "taking". It would seem like a reasonable consensus of expectations is a far simpler way for the tiny minority (cyclists) to coexist with the vast majority (car drivers).

I am also amazed at how cavalier the A&S crowd seems to be on running stop signs and stop lights. They seem to be pretty simple devices to understand, and the law seems to be fairly clear on them. That must put me in a minority of the minority.

VTBike

That is perhaps the most mature, and well reasoned comment you will see on the A&S sub-forum for quite some time.

We live in a society. We are members of this society. Having a bicycle under your legs does not give you immunity from being a member society - and being subject to the realities of being such a member.

The simple lesson: Cycling on public roads can not be done in a vacuum. We need to recognize that fact or we will be deservedly mocked by others.

genec

/sarcasm on

Yeah, no doubt it is those nasty cyclists causing all the road problems...

Just look at all the "bikers" in that picture.



/sarcasm off

dru_

Honestly, I am cyclist, I am an advocate. If the piece covers what I suspect they are (it looks like it is boy racers, ripping through MU and roads disregarding signs/lights/posted speed limits in and through Central Park), then they are probably right.

Too many cyclists ride with a massive chip on the shoulder. We *are* hated by motorists and pedestrians alike, because for every 99 'well behaved riders' one knucklehead is what people remember. We have the same disease. We hate cars, but for every 99 cars that do the right thing, we get our knickers in a twist over the one that does something stupid or mean spirited.

B. Carfree

Good on you for understanding what a stop sign means. Too bad you don't understand the equally simple "Share the Road" signs. I guess this will be easier for you when your local jurisdiction replaces them with "Cyclists May Use Full Lane", which is what is currently being put up since so many people have trouble understanding the StR version.

Here's what "Share the Road" signs mean: This road's right, and likely only, lane is too narrow for a car and bike to safely operate side-by-side. Therefore, motorists are to wait until it is clear to change lanes before passing any cyclists they may encounter. Cyclists are also permitted and encouraged to ride in such a manner as to discourage unsafe in-lane passing by motorists.

Yes, that means share the road is NOT the same as share the lane. In fact, where such a sign is put up it means the opposite of share the lane.

VTBike

I think he was explaining his personal position on use, and sharing, of the road - not asking for you to impose your beliefs upon him. You may be factually correct regarding the intent of signs, but he is entitled to interpret the signs in a manner that is best for him so long as it is legal to do so. "Legal" is the key word.

BuffaloBud

Instead of debating it here, why doesn't someone contact Inside Edition and ask for a counterpoint response from the cyclists perspective?

FBinNY 

How wou;d that work. Half the people here, think there's a valid point and cyclists (some) ARE out of control. The other half would try to somehow justify based on road realities.

Any, let's be real. This is Inside Edition,, not exactly know for quiet, on point reporting. I have no idea what the ratio of "good" and out of control cyclists is, but rest assured they've edited out any reasonable conduct and strung together a montage of the worst of the worst.

Cyclosaurus

Even in your own words you provide the key distinction. Cyclists do get upset about the (relatively) few dangerous drivers, but do not hate all drivers. Yet many drivers and pedestrians hate *all* cyclists because of the actions of a select few.

VTBike

Until and unless we come up with a machine to control the thoughts of motorists, this is all the more reason to be critical of those cyclists who engage in dangerous behavior.

RollCNY

That is the exact same requirement that is in place regardless of the sign, at least in NY state. "Sharing the Road" is the title of Chapter 11 of the NY DOT training manual, and has been since they started printing the manual in color. There is no specific statute that indicates any area to be designated with that specific signage, at least that I see in NY's Vehicle and Traffic Law. Also, NY VTL does not ever use the word "encourage" in regards to taking the lane to prevent passing.

mconlonx

You're right. Maybe The Jerry Springer show would be a better venue...

Cyclosaurus

I regularly ride on a short stretch of road that has one narrow lane each way with a median. There's barely room for a car and bike to ride side by side without touching, never mind with the 3' mandated by Illinois law. There are multiple "Bikes may use full lane signs" along this stretch, which is only 1/2 mile long. And yet every single time I ride it, I get angry honking, buzzed closely, or yelled at by at least one driver. This is a residential area in which the cars are only generally going a little faster than me anyway. And I don't even ride in the middle of the lane. There simply isn't room for both of us to be in the lane even when I ride towards the right.

These people aren't angry because I'm breaking laws, or even because other cyclists break laws. They simply resent my existence on "their" road. Driver apathy and hostility is, and will continue to be, the fundamental issue which governs how safe cyclists are in traffic. It doesn't mean all drivers are bad, it means that there is virtually a 100% chance that in a ride of more than a few blocks, you will encounter a driver who puts your safety at risk.

For over a decade I walked over a mile each way to and from the train station to my office in downtown Chicago. I can say that in that time, it was a very rare occurrence for a cyclist to do something that put me at risk. Every day I had to contend with dangerous drivers.

The false equivalence made between cyclists and drivers is simply a tactic to derail any serious discussion about modifying driver behavior.

mconlonx

This is a ridiculous assumption. Some cyclists do hate all drivers, not just the dangerous few; I doubt a majority of drivers and pedestrians hate all cyclists because of the actions of a select few.

Cyclosaurus

We do have such things. They are called "education", and "laws". But any attempts to suggest it are shouted down by "but...but...cyclists are naughty too!" But I appreciate at least the admission from you that motorists are the source of the problem.

spare_wheel

riding on a multi use path is illegal. fascinating.
taking the lane is illegal. fascinating x2.

And yet...somehow...despite my constant stop sign-blowing, USAnian cycling mode share is increasing while motorized couch sitting has been trending down for a generation.

InOmaha

If they set a speed trap up on the steepest downhill of our MUP, I'd be over the speed limit. Braking slows me to 15-20 mph. If you forget 25-30 mph is easy. But it's only a couple hundreds yards long.

All the footage in the clip is downhill footage. Maybe they should make the entire Central Park loop uphill to slow them down.

VTBike

Interesting. I have not seen that attitude at all where I live. And to clarify, I did not say that motorists are the sole source of the problem as you have intimated. Motorists are not perfect, and neither are bicyclists. We both could use some self reflection.

VTBike

Do brakes not work sufficiently to comply with the law when going downhill?

Cyclosaurus

To be clear, I never said a majority of drivers/pedestrians hate cyclists. But even a small % of them equates to many. Enough drivers that you are almost guaranteed to come someone with an irrational hostility on a regular basis. I will also agree that some cyclists do hate all drivers, but that that is not who is dominating the discussion. Even here, which would be as friendly as anywhere to sheer anti-motorist sentiment, those voice are in the minority. However, almost any public debate about cyclist safety has people who are clearly unhinged with anti-cyclist hate as the most vocal and active participants.

Cyclosaurus

Funny...your answer to dangerous drivers to throw your hands up and say, "sorry, we don't have a machine to control their thoughts", but to scofflaw cyclists, "this is all the more reason to be critical of those cyclists". I think that sums up your bias: let dangerous drivers off the hook, just focus on cyclists.