It's safer to take the bike lane or sidewalk w/ your car in NY, or so it would appear from the way they drive and park, whenever I go for a visit! (That said I love NYC... but I'd be afraid to cycle there)

A lot of people (especially those who are not from big cities) who say "he should just take the lane". I want to see you do this in NYC. To give you an idea how we drive here, when the light turns green, we gun it! We think it's a drag race to next red light. Taxi cabs try to out do each other for fare, drivers try to avoid taxi cabs and cyclists trying to avoid both! You take the lane and you get one inattentive driver, the next thing you know, you'll be under someone's bumper.

Besides, why would you want to take the lane? Most of the time, you can go faster white-lining.

If you follow the "law", it's almost a lose-lose situation in NYC. You take the lane and slow everyone down when the light turns green. Everyone honks and possible scream/throw things/spit at you as they pass. Then when you reach the next red light (in 500ft), you stay behind these cars that are backed up? If that's the case, why ride your bike? You'll be going much slower than vehicular traffic.

But this is exactly the problem with the current transportation policy... So if you aren't taking a lane, but instead are "sharing" it, who has ROW when there is a lateral shift within the lane? Since the motorist has no incentive/need to look or worry about someone behind them, why should they care. The cyclist has incentive, but how can they control what a driver in front of them is doing?

And of course if the motorists feel you shouldn't be taking a lane and hassle you for it... what recourse do you have?

Certainly the issue is with our transportation policy and the way cyclists get "the left overs" of the road.

EXACTLY!!! So how do we fix this lose-lose situation? :(

You can't control what anyone in front of you is doing -- that's obvious enough. The trick, then, is to avoid getting caught next to a vehicle. If they're in front of you and swerve to the side, it's not nearly as big of a deal as when they're next to you and decide to swerve. They don't even have to be directly in front, just as long as their rear bumper is far enough ahead of your front wheel.

I don't mind getting the "leftovers of the road", since that means that I can go where cars can't. ;)

:notamused: If it wold have been me and the window was open far enough for him to talk to me like that he would have a fat lip or a black eye or both. Senator or not, he puts his pants on the same way I do, if you know what I mean. :50: Don't pick a fight with an old man, he will just kill ya!!:50:

pop's

+1

There is one, and only one, left lane (no mention of a bike lane, and he specifically says he was "in the curbside of that lane"). If the car had (illegally) passed the cyclist which occupied the same lane, he would have been aware of his presence, and the incident wouldn't have happened. Instead, it appears that the cyclist was in the process of (illegally) passing the motorist. Obey the traffic laws, or STFU.

I've got answers for all these, but it's Sunday night, I'm tired and going to get a good nights sleep. I'll post my responses tomorrow or the next day. W/much respect to any who disagree this is AT LEAST an intersting, thought provoking thread. Gotta re-read the letter again, though. Certain details are getting away from me. G'night fellow commuters. Be Safe out there.:thumb:

Right on.Activism.I like it.

He (along with Transportation Alternatives) does have an agenda, but it's not at all about assuring that cyclists can ride the road safely. And it's not about cyclists' rights. Since this is the commuting forum, I'll just direct people to this A&S thread.

You know, I'm proud of No Impact Man for making an example of a someone in political office that gave the road rage so many of us experience daily.

Let him publicize the encounter with his letter, blog, etc. If more people thought we'd write to their employers each time we had a close call, they would instantly be looking for us, like any other vehicle.

True ,read the fine print.You're right. I wish I had time to read this all right now

You're right. Road rage should be reported. So, to whom do we report "No Impact Man's" road rage?

And yes, by all means, let "no impact man" publicize his own self-righteousness. Given that the senator has apparently agreed to meet, at least the senator seems to have some sense that he might have done something wrong. But "no impact man" rode dangerously and stupidly, and now demands an apology for the accident his own reckless riding almost caused. What a spoiled child. What an embarrassment to cyclists everywhere.

And that's how things work in Happyland.

Ya gotta understand that my comment about "if he had been walking instead of riding a machine made from dug-up ore, etc etc" was in jest (partly, at least ;)).

But yeah, read his open letter again. The most important part -- the who, where, and when regarding the positioning of the senator and NoImpactMan -- is just one sentence long, in the paragraph right after "To refresh your memory:" at his blog entry:
http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/...en-letter.html

To me, that's what triggered the whole thing, and I also think that it could have been avoided just as easily as it happened. If I let myself get caught in the same position as he was, I'm more apologetic than confrontational, because I think it's a very dangerous place for me to ride.

Sure, but the underlying problem is that IS "the leftovers" we are often given... based on our current transportation policies... Share the lane, share the road, and due to the greater maneuverability of the bike, you end up being at least momentarily in one blind spot after another as you wind your way past a typical "rush hour" scene.

Old Helmet Head used to say... "don't put yourself there..." well the fact is the only other recourse is to take a lane and sit stagnant in all those exhaust fumes with all the motorists. Like that is an improvement. :rolleyes:

Our lane sharing policy gives the cyclist no recourse... at the very least a bike lane would have given the cyclist and the motorist a defined location... a line in the sand so to speak. Sharing lanes in bumper to bumper traffic, gives nothing... taking a lane, while safer, results in breathing smog.

OK all you anti-facilities gurus... any better suggestions?

agreed. sitting behind a car in fumes sucks. i stop behind cars at stoplights, but in straight up traffic its a little different.

Yeah, but.. (oh god, I hate it when people say "yeah, but.." :o)

There are just three states of traffic -- they're all going faster than me, we're all going about the same speed, or they're all basically stuck and I'm the one going faster.

When everyone else is faster, they're nearby for just a second or two and no more. It's futile to think that I'll never be in a blind spot, but then again, I'm in those blind spots for such short periods that they hardly matter anyway.

When we're all the same speed, it's quite easy to take the lane and stay out of blind spots. Kind of like running with the herd, basically.

If they're bumper-to-bumper, I can pick and choose with much more freedom. The main thing I have to keep an eye out for is when there's a gap in a lane that's big enough for a car to merge into -- because, if someone's impatient enough, that's exactly what they'll do, even if they only gain twenty feet (and, to be fair to the motorist, twenty feet might be the difference between making the next light or getting stuck even longer).

If it matters, I wouldn't complain about bike-only facilities, especially if they're done well. In the meantime, I'll do the best with the leftovers that we've got (can't really "make lemonade", but a spicy chili isn't out of the question :p).