JohnBrooking

I chose the closest to my feeling, which is that I am mostly not intimidated by traffic, and I do believe that almost all drivers want to avoid hitting me. Actually, I've never really encountered any who act like they want to hit me, hardly even much vehicular intimidation. I think part of it is is riding in Maine (motto: The Way Life Should Be), which I'm certain is a way better riding environment than some of you are talking about, and I'm thankful to be here. (<tourism pitch>Come visit us sometime! Lots of great biking events, scenery, lobsters, and nice people too!</tourism pitch>)

Plus, I've only been riding 2-1/2 years, so it could also be that my time just hasn't come yet.

I think sbhikes makes a good point, that most drivers are nervous of what we are going to do. I was just talking to my mom on the phone tonight, and she said almost the exact same thing: "I'm always afraid they're going to swerve into me." Which is one reason I'm always so careful to do everything correctly and predictably, to try to counter some of those negative impressions people get from those OTHER bicyclists.

PWRDbyTRD

I am not intimidated by cars in the least. I have to deal with them every day on the way to work. I take up my own lane on a 4 lane road and I even use the turn lane like I'm a vehicle. I get honked at all the time telling me to get out of the road and I will flag them around, if the problem persists I will stop and tell them I am not moving. I have no problem with a confrontation. Every cager I have approach has denied their actions or driven off when I approached.

Simplebiker

I'd like to say I am not intimidated by traffic, but very fast traffic, I must admit, is still a bit intimidating to me. I think MOST motorist really don't want to hit me. Some motorist may be annoyed when they think they are being delayed. Sometimes people perceive the two or three seconds of delay as being longer than it really is. I think an even smaller number may actually want to intimidate me and might follow through with some engine gunning or riding too closely. And even smaller percentage actually wants to hit me. And an even smaller percentage of people (people I have not met yet fortunately), would actually try to follow through with hitting me.

nick burns

I am not intimidated by traffic. I am, however, aware of the many violent acts that occur everyday by human beings. I am also aware these same perpetrators of violent acts may in fact drive automobiles. I have to respect that reality.
I have had two incidents with the same driver last year. Each time he intentionally attemped to hit me. Fortunately both times I saw it coming and successfully avoided it. I have also had stuff thrown at me. Cyclist friends have told me stories of similar events. A female cyclist friend was groped by an auto passenger leaning out of the window. There have been post after post in these forums of motorists harassing cyclists.
I do believe there is an element of the population who would not care the least if they hit a cyclist. There are people who don't care if they kill another person, cyclist or not. If you choose to ignore that fact, you do so at your own peril.
The poll is designed poorly. You cannot lump all operators of motor vehicles together. That assumes all humans behave identically once behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. That assumption invalidates any results you attempt to draw from the poll.

darkmother

I have had people try to hit me with their vehicle on at least 4 occasions. That's not lottery odds, dude.

lala

"I also believe that some bad driver is going to hit me sooner ot later. Bad drivers hit other cars and cars are bigger and easier to see than my bike. Some ditz eating a taco while talking on a cell phone is gonna wack me. It happens"

Yes. It doesn't stop us tho, eh?

I-Like-To-Bike

I have consulted my crystal ball and predict the next "exploratory" poll along the lines of:

NEW POLL!
Bicyclists, Describe Yourself, (these choices cover the entire spectrum of cyclists as determined by the poll-meister):

1. I am V(ehicular) C(yclist); I am invincible! Sung to the tune of "I Am Woman" by Helen Reddy.

2. I am a VC trained bicycle driver, and I may/or may not be invincible, but I know more than everybody else, just like Dr. Science.

3. I am too lazy to read and/or or too stupid to care about John Forester's books.

4. I am an incompetent dumbbell too ignorant to follow the advice of my superiors, who have read and care about the "cycling truth" found in John Forester's books.

5. I am a mendacious tool of sinister forces, casting aspersions on the "scientific evidence" that is at the source of the faith of Effective Cycling Adherents.

Treespeed

Serge,

Sorry for getting so upset, but you can be so absolutist in your arguments.

I'll clarify my position. I am very rarely intimidated by traffic, though I have to admit with the drenching rain combined with Los Angeles driver's poor wet weather driving skills has me a little more on edge than usual. Come on people it's rain not sulfuric acid. But I digress, most drivers are not out to hit anyone. They are in their own world, distracted by their own problems. Most are safe and courteous, they smile and wave and do their best to pass safely or yield when appropriate.

Yet the majority of good drivers does not preclude the existence of aggresive, violent drivers who regardless of their intentions kill and injure cyclists. I think even the anecdotal accounts from folks on this forum and my own experience would negate your 1 in 10 million odds. There are tens of thousands of homicides each year using handguns. I doubt that all of these homicidal maniacs ride the bus so it's logical to assume that there are drivers capable of homicide sharing the road with us each day.

I find it strange that people who would never take a swing at me, let alone wield a gun or a knife will use their car as a weapon. Yet when you get these people out of their car after an accident and they are standing face to face with you, the intentional ones at least, always say, "you wouldn't get out of my way," or "you shouldn't be on the road." But if I was to say, punch the driver in the nose, I would be the one charged with assault.

This is why to my mind the most important thing I can do when I'm on the road is to get drivers to see me as a person and not just, "one of those cyclists." This to me is being predictable, making eye contact and smiling and waving to acknowledge courteous driving.

That being said there are some people who will not be appeased and will be pissed no matter how well you ride. Maybe to your mind Serge there is a difference between a motorist brushing you and intentionally broadsiding you. But my question is how do you brush someone at speed with a 3,000 lb. machine? In my opinion hitting a cyclist is hitting a cyclist, whether it is with a mirror or the fender.

Just because I'm not paranoid, doesn't mean that some of them aren't still out to get me.

genec

I think that really sums up the issues... Plus I would like to add that alcohol coupled with aggressive behavior can often turn a "playful" gesture into something quite harmful. As I stated in my situations, I have had a beer can hurled at me... obviously the driver or passenger was not in the best frame of mind. Had it hit me, I could have been severely injured... as it was, it hit the curb just in front of my front tire and sprayed me. The yell as it was hurled didn’t help my frame of mind either. Maturity of some drivers also plays into this…

The bottom line is that there are folks out there that do not want to “play nice” no matter what the “rules” are.

I think that most of the drivers out there do not want to hit or hurt cyclists, but there are others, that through aggressive driving may cause you harm, and still others that are just jerks… while rare, they do exist.

Helmet-Head

I agree with Gene. Treespeed posted a very good summary of the issues, and a very reasonable and thoughtful perspective. Much appreciated.

Pardon me for being absolutely sure of that.

jimhens714

I'm one of the ones that answered: I am NOT intimidated by traffic and I DO believe motorists want to avoid hitting me.

Having traffic not intimidate me does not imply that I trust all drivers intent or skill. I do have a healthy fear of the result of a 180 lb bike and rider meeting up with 3000 lb automobile (physics will prevail).

I believe most people do want to avoid hitting me but I don't think there is a consistent motivation for it. Some may truly care about my wellbeing. Others may only be interested in avoiding any sort of accident and the resulting insurance premium rate increase.

I've found that if I ride unpredictably (don't signal or clearly indicate my intent) then drivers will appear to do the same. If I do signal, use common sense, ride predictably, etc. then drivers also will do the same and my riding experience will be vastly improved.

Whether I ride predictably or not, ride VC or not, signal or not, take the lane or not, has no affect on the behavior of the occasional a**h*** behind the wheel. They will be a**h***s no matter what we do. To them...I just blow 'em a kiss.

Treespeed

Serge,
you are absolutely pardoned.

genec

Add this to the field of folks that may have been intimidated by traffic...

https://velonews.com/news/fea/7625.0.html

Helmet-Head

Gene,

Most cyclists believe they are second class users of the road, or at least ride as if that's what they believe. In turn, that's how most motorists treat them. As a result, it's no surprise to me that you can find example after example of cyclists, even cops who are cyclists, who agree with your terrified perspective.

All I can tell you is that once I took it on faith that motorists will treat me respectfully if I rode vehicularly, and rode accordingly, they did. To me, that was convincing of one thing: the greatest factor by far in determining how motorists will behave with respect to me is my own behavior. The bonus is that since I control my own behavior, I also have direct control over the main factor that influences motorist behavior towards me.

The flip-side is that if you believe the opposite, or something close to it, that no matter what you do there are motorists out there who will gun for you, so to speak, and you ride according to that belief, then you will ride as if you believe you are a second class user of the roadway, and will in turn invite the very kind of motorist behavior which you fear.

Motorists are like dogs. If you act like the Alpha, they'll treat you like you're the Alpha. If you show your fear to them, they will take advantage of it.

At least that's my experience.

Serge

genec

Very typical response... Now what if you act like the Alpha dog and a bigger Alpha bites you?

Serge, I used to ride as if I was bullet proof... just like you do today. Now I am a bit more conservative in my riding. I have encountered the response of idiots behind wheels.

Good luck.

Helmet-Head

Believe me, Gene, I don't ride as if I'm "bullet proof" - that's not at all what I mean by acting like the Alpha, though I can see how you might misconstrue it that way.

Let's agree that it's very hard to describe how anyone rides in writing. Further, since we only know of each other through writing, we really don't know how the other rides. We can make reasonable guesses, at best. Let me try to describe one particular aspect of how I ride.

I consider the way I ride to be extremely conservative with respect to taking risks. The difference with others, I believe, is in the understanding of what constitutes conservative riding.

For example, on a narrow roadway such as depicted in the image below (Via de la Valle just west of El Camino Real), most cyclists probably believe that the conservative/safe thing to do is ride as close as possible to the fog line, because that's what they do on this stretch of road. But the Alpha-conservative approach, if you will, that I advocate, contends that riding so close to the fog line invites motorists to squeeze into the lane as they pass you, thus passing with an unsafe passing margin (given the 50mph speed limit and common speeds of 60 mph, narrow lanes, no shoulder, etc.). The Alpha-conservative approach is therefore to stake a postion a few feet to the left of the fog line, giving the cyclist "wiggle room" on his right for safety, and at the same time signalling to passing motorists that there is insufficient room to pass within the lane given the high speed differential. When they slow down, and it's safe, the Alpha-conservative cyclist pulls over to accomodate them safely passing him.

But this does not come from believing I'm bullet-proof (or car-smash proof). Not at all. Quite the contrary.

RonH

Of course. They don't want to scratch their shiny car/truck/van/SUV!

genec

Gee, exactly how I used to ride old hiway 94 out to Dulzura and Tecate... except perhaps for the tight mountain curves where I might not be sure that someone approaching at say 30MPH would see me in time... Although often there was no other way to ride, as the fog line was right on the rock. Generally it was a matter of timing with a touch of fear in those areas.

However those rides were not nearly as scary, and were often quite refreshing as compared to riding in the morning commute traffic and watching the cagers through their dew laden windows juggling cigarettes, cell phones and coffee while I wondered if they realize I am about to cross in front of them... in my bright yellow/green vest on my 40 pound bike.

Since I put myself right into the lane while crossing the intersections, I could only hope the bleary eyes staring at me were comprehending that I was a human and had rights to the very road that they were poised to turn right (on red) upon... even though somehow they failed to indicate their desires with the use of the ever so convenient turn signal.

Almost weekly I would see a Starbucks sipping cager whose eyes would widen in surprise at the realization that they were stepping on the gas, just as my bike went before grill of their great leather seated foreign-made behemoth... on some occasions I could even see the words "Oh my god!" form in their mouths.

Of course this was nothing compared to the apparent game of tag that some chose to play... zooming and zipping between their fellow commuters, nary an indication as to their destination, often slipping between the sleek metal frames of fellow commuters with scant inches to spare, their charges breathing the roar of powerful hydrocarbon beasts pushed to extremes. The drivers of such beasts often seemed to be enthralled by the loud pulsing sounds that emanated from within the darkened confines of their barely restrained thumping metal cages.

Other commuters were more of the harried type, so much in a hurry, so often trying to be in more than one place at a time and so easily disturbed by those that did not share their concern for rushing about like silly rats in an ever increasingly complex maze... these restless few of shattered nerves and little patience took perverse pleasure in disposing of objects from within their vehicles at any available target, while voicing opinions formed deep inside rattled brains as to their ownership of the roadways. While somewhat amusing, the skills required to dodge disgorged objects, might require well-focused attentions of a cyclist well beyond the simple navigation feats often encountered on the poorly maintained, crowded urban tarmac.

Anthony King

I'm crackin' up at this one, brother. I think you're a wee bit more intimidating than the average cyclist. (Scroll up to see PRWD'S avatar if you don't get my meaning.)

Helmet-Head

Actually, the further out you are, the longer are the sight lines for them to see you sooner.

So we both ride in the "Alpha-conservative" style. So will you agree to stop characterizing the riding I describe as riding as if I was bullet-proof?

While we're at it, will you also agree to stop saying that when I'm arguing against bike lanes that I'm only arguing or thinking about "San Diego bike lanes", when, in fact, I'm arguing against ALL bike lanes past, present and future, regardless of location, that fit the description "a lane designated for cyclists which is painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving" (note that anything that doesn't fit that description is not a bike lane)?


Rocks!

genec

I cannot do that... regardless of the description, the standard and the definitions given in the MUTCD, ALL bike lanes are not the same. Heck, the laws governing cyclists using bike lanes are not the same from state to state. This is why I cannot agree to your arguement that "ALL bike lanes are bad." In fact, you have actully indicated at least one good use of a bike lane... along controlled access freeways.

Look, I will offer a colorful arguement hopefully to address this: A dress is "an outer garment (as for a woman or girl) usually consisting of a one-piece bodice and skirt."** But as different as a peasant dress is from a black cocktail dress, so too can bike lanes differ in their actual implementation.

There is an old, I think, philosophy argument that goes something like this... If you have a huge jar of jelly beans and you pluck them out one at a time, and each one is black, but you never get to the bottom, can you say for certain that all the jelly beans in the jar will be black?

I have conceeded that many bike lanes now in use are terrible in implementation... BUT I have seen better... I can only hope for greater improvement.



** from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

genec

True, and so too could you hear autos approaching from farther off... and since there was no other area to ride... the usual method was simply to ride in the middle of the lane and hope for the best. Usually the motorists were just as spooked about what they might encounter... so it generally worked out.

What I didn't mention was riding down hill in the slipstream of autos coming back... Yahoooooo!

These days, thoughts of that skinny tire hitting a tiny rock would not let me do that... sigh.... Sad thing about getting older.

(I still remember chasing semi-trucks down 101/1 coming out of Lompoc... freaked my wife out...)

Helmet-Head

Gene, I'm not saying ALL bike lanes are the same in every respect.

I am saying all bike lanes are the same in at least this one respect: a lane designated for cyclists which is painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving.

Do you agree ALL bike lanes are the same in at least this one respect?

If not, can you provide even one example (hypothetical is fine) of a bike lane that does not fit that description?

If nothing else, can you at least acknowledge that my argument applies to all bike lanes that do share that characteristic?


But if someone presented an argument about ALL dresses based on their shared characteristic of having a skirt component (as opposed to pant legs), would you try to argue that that argument can't apply to ALL dresses simply because all dresses are not the same?

Pointing out that all bike lanes are not the same does not refute my contention that my argument applies to all bike lanes, past, present, future, real, abstract and fantastic, assuming all bike lanes share this one characteristic: a lane designated for cyclists which is painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving.


Of course not, but you can say they are all candy (or they wouldn't be jelly beans!), and, for example, if you were on a strict no candy diet, then you wouldn't have to examine each and every jelly bean (just because they're all different) to make sure there isn't one that happens to not be candy. Just because they're not all the same doesn't make it possible for even one of them to be acceptable food for someone on a strict no-candy diet.

So, I'll try again...

Given that ALL bike lanes are "lanes designated for cyclists which are painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving", and my critique addresses all lanes that are "lanes designated for cyclists which are painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving", will you agree to stop saying that my argument does not apply to all bike lanes?

genec

But you ARE trying to treat ALL bike lanes the same. Just as you assume that all black jelly beans taste the same. You will never in fact know until you have tried them all. Therefore, you cannot make a blanket statement about ALL of them. Especially with regard to the future. (as noted in post 45: "I'm arguing against ALL bike lanes past, present and future, regardless of location, that fit the description 'a lane designated for cyclists which is painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving'")

You certainly cannot argue against a bike lane painted along a limited access freeway, which is quite functional, and it does indeed fit your description: "a lane designated for cyclists which is painted alongside vehicular lanes and from which motorists are generally restricted from driving."

I am avoiding your descriptive absolutes here... I believe in exceptions... chaos theory and quantum mechanics both support me.

As I was able to offer an exception, (the limited access freeway) so I cannot agree to your terms.

Helmet-Head

Fair enough.

But will you agree that my argument applies to ALL bike lanes that are not on limited access (where access to cyclists is otherwise prohibited) highways?