Interesting Op-Ed

[flydhest]

http://wapo.st/1FQxXdx

[kevinvc]

What I find sad and sobering is that his trademark snark and hyperbole are largely absent here. Most of what he says is pretty much straight up true.

Thanks for sharing this.

[45K10]

Liked it
Thanks for posting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Louis]

Cute, but I doubt it will cause even one driver to change his / her behavior on the road.

[SlackMan]

Cute, but I doubt it will cause even one driver to change his / her behavior on the road.

Sadly, I think Louis right on this.

[Louis]

The thing is, even cyclists can be bad drivers.

A few years ago while out on a ride I was cut off pretty badly by a youngish guy (only person in the car) who was driving a sedan with a bike on the roof. Of course it might not have been his bike, but chances are, it was.

There's just got to be something about driving a car that turns us into even bigger self-centered morons than we are normally. (except, of course, for the fine folks on this forum)

[zmudshark]

Cute, but I doubt it will cause even one driver to change his / her behavior on the road.

Cute is the point, and nothing will change driver/human behavior in public.

Sadly, I think Louis right on this.

Yes. I try to be polite, but aggressive on the road. I make them look at me and take a lane when legal. I don't yell until they've attempted manslaughter.

[rounder]

I know that a lot of motorists treat cyclists with disrespect.

I do a lot of driving on I95 and can say that they pretty much also treat other drivers without respect.

Be safe...wear your helmets

[sfscott]

Not a day goes by when I'm commuting into and out of the SF financial district without multiple cyclists doing stupid things in traffic forcing drivers to have quick reflexes. Yesterday I'm turning right and a bike comes out of my left blind spot, cuts in front and turns right.

The pervasive attitude that cars and bikes have equal entitlement to the road is a great mantra until the laws of physics get in the way.

As a cyclist, bad drivers are certainly an issue. But cyclists can be obnoxious and irresponsible on their bikes as well.

[JAllen]

Thank you for posting. I looked the comments as well (why did I do that...) and it is unbelievable how many people's rebuttals were that they see some people on bikes break the rules at times. They say it almost like it's a justification for cyclist to befall harm!!! Are they turning a blind eye to what yayhoo idiot drivers do?!?! what the Fu@%!!!!!!

foagijsdoifjosadjfosjaofijsodfhoshfhwrofhw[8hfnslfnv;snc!

I'm a little miffed, sorry.

[A1CKot]

Just returned from a ride and read this. Really makes me not want to return to America. I turned to mountain biking in North Dakota because of how unsafe road riding were and now I'm basically in heaven. While I have encounter some Japanese drivers who have passed very close or had moment and pulled out in front of me the vast majority of drivers are very polite and respectful. Also the speed limits are much lower. Some of the roads I normally ride I can ride with traffic and usually take take the lane and ride like I'm a car.

Funny thing about Japan is that the license plates of Americans have an Y or A on them to signify that you are not from a specific prefecture. So when I get buzzed I check and see if it was an American or not and most times it is.

[oldpotatoe]

Just returned from a ride and read this. Really makes me not want to return to America. I turned to mountain biking in North Dakota because of how unsafe road riding were and now I'm basically in heaven. While I have encounter some Japanese drivers who have passed very close or had moment and pulled out in front of me the vast majority of drivers are very polite and respectful. Also the speed limits are much lower. Some of the roads I normally ride I can ride with traffic and usually take take the lane and ride like I'm a car.

Funny thing about Japan is that the license plates of Americans have an Y or A on them to signify that you are not from a specific prefecture. So when I get buzzed I check and see if it was an American or not and most times it is.

You do know the process a Japanese driver must follow to get a driver's license, right?

8 hours to go 33 miles one summer outside Yokosuka made me ready to come back to the US, with all it's warts.

But ask to do back to backs in Kadena..I'll bet they will let ya.

[A1CKot]

Lol yeah I'm aware of the time and cost involved for them. Funny enough when we get here its a 30 minute slide show and a test of to make sure you can properly guess the road signs.

I'm not sure if I want to double down here though. The unit I'm assigned to travels a bunch and I love it now but another 4 year of it... I'm not sure.

[zap]

Thank you for posting. I looked the comments as well (why did I do that...) and it is unbelievable how many people's rebuttals were that they see some people on bikes break the rules at times. They say it almost like it's a justification for cyclist to befall harm!!! Are they turning a blind eye to what yayhoo idiot drivers do?!?! what the Fu@%!!!!!!

foagijsdoifjosadjfosjaofijsodfhoshfhwrofhw[8hfnslfnv;snc!

I'm a little miffed, sorry.

Comments are so predictable here in the USA.

Just read a book review (Bike Battles: A History of Sharing American Roads by Longhurst) by Grant Peterson in the WSJ. What caught my eye, cyclists in the late 19th century being whipped by a farmer in IL as they rode past his farm. One day a cyclist stopped, grabbed the farmers whip and the lashing ensued, plus black eye's. Apparently the farmer stopped whipping passing cyclists after that.

[velomonkey]

I drove my daughter to school the other day - it took, maybe, 12 minutes.


I saw a cop on a phone.

I had 3 cars pass me and other drivers on the far right lane and then cut over 2 lanes - we were going 80mph.

I saw one woman plane as day on a phone holding it at 12 o'clock on her wheel. Then she added a notepad and started writing on it

Getting on the highway the person with the yield did not felid, just kept driving


I didn't see one single bike rider - it's was on the highway, you know, the roads most drivers are on and the ones no bikers are allowed on.

Go on, keep saying bikers share the blame - I'm sill looking for that dead car driver from a biker - haven't found it yet. Article was good, won't change a thing - and that sucks.

[malcolm]

I drove my daughter to school the other day - it took, maybe, 12 minutes.


I saw a cop on a phone.

I had 3 cars pass me and other drivers on the far right lane and then cut over 2 lanes - we were going 80mph.

I saw one woman plane as day on a phone holding it at 12 o'clock on her wheel. Then she added a notepad and started writing on it

Getting on the highway the person with the yield did not felid, just kept driving


I didn't see one single bike rider - it's was on the highway, you know, the roads most drivers are on and the ones no bikers are allowed on.

Go on, keep saying bikers share the blame - I'm sill looking for that dead car driver from a biker - haven't found it yet. Article was good, won't change a thing - and that sucks.

Not to derail the original thread but I've become obsessed with noting what drivers are doing on my 20min commute of taking the kids to school then on to work. If you take note it's amazing. This week I saw a woman with her phone in one hand and make up device in the other intermittently texting and applying make up. She went from almost rear ending the car in front of her to leaving 50 car length gaps when the light changed because she was so unaware.

From the article, gotta love "foam dunce cap"

[kevinvc]

I usually make 2 points in discussions such as these:

- Some folks are careless / hostile when traveling in either a car or a bike. These people do things that put themselves and others at risk. But for some reason, most everyone will look at a bad driver in a car as an individual and think "that person is a jerk". Yet, for some reason, it is much more common to conflate the actions of someone behaving poorly on a bike to the entire class of riders. The reaction is "see, all cyclists are jerks". It's unfair, but it's true.

- The person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher level of responsibility to do so safely. It's not the law in the US, but it's a simple moral code. Most of us do this when we're not driving and it's only ourselves potentially at risk, e.g. we're more careful with a butcher knife than a butter knife. On the streets, this code should means that cyclists have a greater responsibility to not hit pedestrians, then up to cars, larger SUVs, etc. When I'm driving my minivan it is incumbent on me to have a heightened spatial awareness because it is literally easy to kill a more vulnerable road user.

I've made these points in a number of discussions on-line and in face to face conversations. I am often able to get the other person to at least say that they understand my perspective but I seriously doubt it's changed their behavior.

[rugbysecondrow]

Here is what I read, "its not our behavior which needs adjustment, its theirs!"

In a marriage, it typically takes two willing participants to make it succeed or fail, coexistance on the road is no different. Frankly, more pissing and moaning from a self labelled bike snob (and resident dickhead) is not what the discussion needs.

Cars have reflective lights, lighted head and tail lights to improve visability, laws where lights have to be on when it is raining to improve visability, seat belt laws, safety standards etc etc. Cyclists want to be on the road, and enjoy the same privlege as others, then that means participating in a meaningful way, similar to automobiles. Helmet laws? The complaining sounds about like my Dad when he first had to start wearing a seatbelt...pissing and moaning. Reflective gar? "Why would we need to be more visible, just stop hitting us".

How many cyclists have reflectors, lights, or any other safety device which would help them be more visible? Very few in my area. Many around here think they should be able to use they road as "they see fit", and not how they can best integrate into the existing use of the roadway.

Cycling and bicycle rights seems to take 3 steps forwards, then 27 steps back. Articles like this, essentially, say "F*^& You" to motorists, then folks are aghast when motorists say "F*&^ You back". It is not meaningful for moving the conversation forward.

[bobswire]

Here is what I read, "its not our behavior which needs adjustment, its theirs!"

In a marriage, it typically takes two willing participants to make it succeed or fail, coexistance on the road is no different. Frankly, more pissing and moaning from a self labelled bike snob (and resident dickhead) is not what the discussion needs.

Cars have reflective lights, lighted head and tail lights to improve visability, laws where lights have to be on when it is raining to improve visability, seat belt laws, safety standards etc etc. Cyclists want to be on the road, and enjoy the same privlege as others, then that means participating in a meaningful way, similar to automobiles. Helmet laws? The complaining sounds about like my Dad when he first had to start wearing a seatbelt...pissing and moaning. Reflective gar? "Why would we need to be more visible, just stop hitting us".

How many cyclists have reflectors, lights, or any other safety device which would help them be more visible? Very few in my area. Many around here think they should be able to use they road as "they see fit", and not how they can best integrate into the existing use of the roadway.

Cycling and bicycle rights seems to take 3 steps forwards, then 27 steps back. Articles like this, essentially, say "F*^& You" to motorists, then folks are aghast when motorists say "F*&^ You back". It is not meaningful for moving the conversation forward.

Did you read and comprehend what he was getting at? He was suggesting the way things are now it's much like blaming a women for getting raped because how she was dressed. Blaming a cyclist for getting hit and hurt because he was not wearing a helmet or day glo paint is much in the same vein. He was not talking about all those idiot cyclists we all know and love who demean all of us. As it is now drivers are pretty much given the benefit of doubt when involved in a mishap with a cyclist,even if death results because of the drivers inattention. The vast majority of car vs. bike accidents are in broad daylight and due to the driver being inattentive or while making a turn. Being lite up like a Xmas trees would not have helped the majority of those cyclists.

[malcolm]

I usually make 2 points in discussions such as these:

- Some folks are careless / hostile when traveling in either a car or a bike. These people do things that put themselves and others at risk. But for some reason, most everyone will look at a bad driver in a car as an individual and think "that person is a jerk". Yet, for some reason, it is much more common to conflate the actions of someone behaving poorly on a bike to the entire class of riders. The reaction is "see, all cyclists are jerks". It's unfair, but it's true.

- The person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher level of responsibility to do so safely. It's not the law in the US, but it's a simple moral code. Most of us do this when we're not driving and it's only ourselves potentially at risk, e.g. we're more careful with a butcher knife than a butter knife. On the streets, this code should means that cyclists have a greater responsibility to not hit pedestrians, then up to cars, larger SUVs, etc. When I'm driving my minivan it is incumbent on me to have a heightened spatial awareness because it is literally easy to kill a more vulnerable road user.

I've made these points in a number of discussions on-line and in face to face conversations. I am often able to get the other person to at least say that they understand my perspective but I seriously doubt it's changed their behavior.

Kevin I think you make a good point. We, all people, some more than others tend to group people together. Cyclists tend to see motorists as one homogenous group. Usually less so than the reverse because cyclists are usually motorists as well and most motorists have not been on a bike since they were kids. Grouping tends to clear the path to stereotyping especially when one group is pointing out something they perceive as negative in the other group. It also makes it easy to exaggerate, see one cyclist blow a stop sign in traffic, it becomes they all do it.

Not the law but "moral code". I like that and oh if it were so simple. We really only would need a couple laws if we could all abide by that: Be nice, don't hurt people. Don't mess with stuff that doesn't belong to you.
Do those two simple things and everything else would fall into place.

[velomonkey]

"Wearing a helmet isn't even in the top ten things a biker can do to be safe" - Chris Boardman

I wear a helmet every time I swing a leg over the bike - and I agree 100% with this statement. If you don't get it, I suspect our talk will be fruitless.

I know not a single rider who rides their bike on the road and thinks "I own it" - I know a handful who have a death wish, though. Conversely, I find drivers often buzz me to put me in my place - I hate that, I only hate getting my ass slapped and getting dump of diesel as some idiot in a trumped up pickup buzzes me.

[rugbysecondrow]

Did you read and comprehend what he was getting at? He was suggesting the way things are now it's much like blaming a women for getting raped because how she was dressed. Blaming a cyclist for getting hit and hurt because he was not wearing a helmet or day glo paint is much in the same vein. He was not talking about all those idiot cyclists we all know and love who demean all of us. As it is now drivers are pretty much given the benefit of doubt when involved in a mishap with a cyclist,even if death results because of the drivers inattention. The vast majority of car vs. bike accidents are in broad daylight and due to the driver being inattentive or while making a turn.

Read, comprehended, and disagreed. These are not even close to similar analogies. A women is completely innocent. A cyclist is participating in an activity in which they can either choose to enhance their safety and visibility, or not. Why should a cyclist not have to have reflective gear or a light to ride on the street? Slow moving vehicles (tractors, trailers, buggies) have to have a giant reflective triangle.

If you are riding in the street and you are not being proactive in your own safety, then you are contributing to the problem. If a light or reflector helps get drivers attention or helps them see you prior to turning into you, isn't that good?

Cyclists want to use the road the way THEY want to use the road. Everybody else should cave to their desire, which I disagree with.

Motorists are often at fault, but cyclists often contribute, and if we are going to hold motorists accountable, then we need to hold cyclists accountable too.

[velomonkey]

Read, comprehended, and disagreed. These are not even close to similar analogies. A women is completely innocent. A cyclist is participating in an activity in which they can either choose to enhance their safety and visibility, or not. .


Read . . . comprehend . . . disagree. You wicked lost me on the 2nd sentence - and where exactly are you getting this figure that bikers "often contribute" to their own accidents? I suspect I know where, but I'd love to learn.

[aramis]

Read, comprehended, and disagreed. These are not even close to similar analogies. A women is completely innocent. A cyclist is participating in an activity in which they can either choose to enhance their safety and visibility, or not. Why should a cyclist not have to have reflective gear or a light to ride on the street? Slow moving vehicles (tractors, trailers, buggies) have to have a giant reflective triangle.

If you are riding in the street and you are not being proactive in your own safety, then you are contributing to the problem. If a light or reflector helps get drivers attention or helps them see you prior to turning into you, isn't that good?

Cyclists want to use the road the way THEY want to use the road. Everybody else should cave to their desire, which I disagree with.

Motorists are often at fault, but cyclists often contribute, and if we are going to hold motorists accountable, then we need to hold cyclists accountable too.

It feels like you are saying, is that women who wear revealing clothing and get harrassed are asking for it? I mean they're not being "proactive" in their safety. If they were wearing burlap sacks then no one would do anything to them, isn't that good?

The problem isn't helmet use or reflectors or spray on reflective paint.

[rugbysecondrow]

It feels like you are saying, is that women who wear revealing clothing and get harrassed are asking for it? I mean they're not being "proactive" in their safety. If they were wearing burlap sacks then no one would do anything to them, isn't that good?

The problem isn't helmet use or reflectors or spray on reflective paint.

Come on man, that is BS and you know it. Saying that a cyclist should wear clothing which enhances their visibility on the road (something all other vehicles on the road have to do) is somehow the same as being a rape apologist, well that is just desperation coming through.

[JAllen]

It feels like you are saying, is that women who wear revealing clothing and get harrassed are asking for it? I mean they're not being "proactive" in their safety. If they were wearing burlap sacks then no one would do anything to them, isn't that good?

The problem isn't helmet use or reflectors or spray on reflective paint.

I don't agree with the overall stance that ruby is taking and I see what are you saying, but let's just step back a little with that first sentence.

ruby is not saying that. I believe that they were getting at that they don't feel comfortable making that kind of comparison. I agree that it is a sharp one to make and I can see how it does relate. but let's not accuse anyone of that. It's a hefty thing to hurl.

[shovelhd]

Rugby makes great points. I'm not 100% on board but the general theme is solid. If we want respect from other road users, we have to earn it, not legislate it.

As a group we do many things to foster disrespect, yet we do very little to earn respect.

The key missing ingredients are education and compromise. Drivers, cyclists, as well as law enforcement need to fully understand the laws. These laws need to be enforceable and be followed with swift justice. This goes for all road users.

I would have no problem with mandatory bicycle helmet laws. Reflector laws. Nighttime and/or foul weather lighting laws. Hand signal usage laws. It takes away some of our freedom but in turn makes us a lot closer to the other road users in terms of earning the right to be there.

When a licensed, well lit, reflectorized, helmetted cyclist gets hit in an intersection after indicating their turn, then there's no ambiguity. The driver should be charged just as if they hit another motor vehicle. There's no excuses.

The problem comes when as a group we want to be considered as vulnerable road users while riding like total idiots that have nothing other than the tired old gas taxes argument to bring to the table. We have to earn our respect. We have to be willing to compromise to achieve the common goal. We have to give to receive.

[JAllen]

[QUOTE=rugbysecondrow;17421

Dude, sorry rugby for calling you ruby... I never said I could read...

[Gummee]

@Shovel: you're assuming there's going to be respect.

I'll disagree. ANYthing that's 'in the way' and is different will be treated with disdain by the average road user.

Especially the 'in the way' part. Watch people on the freeway next time you're driving. Note how many times someone pulls out in front of another driver with 'less than optimal' space. ...or cuts someone off to 'get ahead' in traffic. ...or...

We're turning a corner in prosecutions of drivers hitting cyclists, but its still mostly a 'whoops! You hit a cyclist Here's a slap on the wrist' situation that the justice system keeps perpetuating with no or very small penalties.

You'd think with all the hoopla about bullying, someone would equate what cars do to us as bullying, but it ain't happening that I can see.

M

[rugbysecondrow]

When a licensed, well lit, reflectorized, helmetted cyclist gets hit in an intersection after indicating their turn, then there's no ambiguity. The driver should be charged just as if they hit another motor vehicle. There's no excuses.

.

this is the point we need to get to.

@Shovel: you're assuming there's going to be respect.

I'll disagree. ANYthing that's 'in the way' and is different will be treated with disdain by the average road user.

Especially the 'in the way' part. Watch people on the freeway next time you're driving. Note how many times someone pulls out in front of another driver with 'less than optimal' space. ...or cuts someone off to 'get ahead' in traffic. ...or...

We're turning a corner in prosecutions of drivers hitting cyclists, but its still mostly a 'whoops! You hit a cyclist Here's a slap on the wrist' situation that the justice system keeps perpetuating with no or very small penalties.

You'd think with all the hoopla about bullying, someone would equate what cars do to us as bullying, but it ain't happening that I can see.

M

I don't think a driver hitting a cyclist automatically deserves prosecution anymore than a driver hitting a car deserves prosecution. Cyclists want the respect of being on the roadway, and they want legal protections and recognition, but they don't want to meet society halfway. They want more than they are willing to give. That is an issue.

[JAllen]

@Shovel: you're assuming there's going to be respect.

I'll disagree. ANYthing that's 'in the way' and is different will be treated with disdain by the average road user.

Especially the 'in the way' part. Watch people on the freeway next time you're driving. Note how many times someone pulls out in front of another driver with 'less than optimal' space. ...or cuts someone off to 'get ahead' in traffic. ...or...

We're turning a corner in prosecutions of drivers hitting cyclists, but its still mostly a 'whoops! You hit a cyclist Here's a slap on the wrist' situation that the justice system keeps perpetuating with no or very small penalties.

You'd think with all the hoopla about bullying, someone would equate what cars do to us as bullying, but it ain't happening that I can see.

M
+1 we are largely not respected in the first place. The reason why all the safety precautions are made with motorists because of the proven lethality of automobiles. I agree that we as cyclists have a responsibility of safety, but you won't reach everyone.

[Anarchist]

Here is what I read, "its not our behavior which needs adjustment, its theirs!"

In a marriage, it typically takes two willing participants to make it succeed or fail, coexistance on the road is no different. Frankly, more pissing and moaning from a self labelled bike snob (and resident dickhead) is not what the discussion needs.

Cars have reflective lights, lighted head and tail lights to improve visability, laws where lights have to be on when it is raining to improve visability, seat belt laws, safety standards etc etc. Cyclists want to be on the road, and enjoy the same privlege as others, then that means participating in a meaningful way, similar to automobiles. Helmet laws? The complaining sounds about like my Dad when he first had to start wearing a seatbelt...pissing and moaning. Reflective gar? "Why would we need to be more visible, just stop hitting us".

How many cyclists have reflectors, lights, or any other safety device which would help them be more visible? Very few in my area. Many around here think they should be able to use they road as "they see fit", and not how they can best integrate into the existing use of the roadway.

Cycling and bicycle rights seems to take 3 steps forwards, then 27 steps back. Articles like this, essentially, say "F*^& You" to motorists, then folks are aghast when motorists say "F*&^ You back". It is not meaningful for moving the conversation forward.

Yup

Read, comprehended, and disagreed. These are not even close to similar analogies. A women is completely innocent. A cyclist is participating in an activity in which they can either choose to enhance their safety and visibility, or not. Why should a cyclist not have to have reflective gear or a light to ride on the street? Slow moving vehicles (tractors, trailers, buggies) have to have a giant reflective triangle.

If you are riding in the street and you are not being proactive in your own safety, then you are contributing to the problem. If a light or reflector helps get drivers attention or helps them see you prior to turning into you, isn't that good?

Cyclists want to use the road the way THEY want to use the road. Everybody else should cave to their desire, which I disagree with.

Motorists are often at fault, but cyclists often contribute, and if we are going to hold motorists accountable, then we need to hold cyclists accountable too.

Yup, again.

[velomonkey]

When a licensed, well lit, reflectorized, helmetted cyclist gets hit in an intersection after indicating their turn, then there's no ambiguity. The driver should be charged just as if they hit another motor vehicle. There's no excuses.



Licensed!!!! Licensed!!!!


And, by the way, I was hit going straight - car turned in after cutting off another car. Oh, also, even though I follow the same laws as a car - I'm not a car - I'm a person on a 20 pound bike and thus vulnerable. The driver was negligent and risked my life, so I would like to see a bit more protection, but I digress.

[velomonkey]

+1 we are largely not respected in the first place. The reason why all the safety precautions are made with motorists because of the proven lethality of automobiles. I agree that we as cyclists have a responsibility of safety, but you won't reach everyone.


Yup, whole bunch of hall monitor stuff going on and all the whole "give respect - get respect" fails to take into account one is a lethal weapon - the other is a bike.

[velomonkey]

Here is what I read, "its not our behavior which needs adjustment, its theirs!"

In a marriage


Here is the only the only thing that can be concluded by the above logic - because of the way some people ride it's somehow justifies or causes other people to get hit and killed by car drivers. I take issue with this. Also, marriage is a false analogy - marriage implies equality, there is nothing equal 200HP of 2 tons of steel versus self-propelled 20 pounds of steel.

If you EVER drive your car in an intimidating way against a cyclist - you should be locked up for aggravated assault.

If you EVER operate your car in an unsafe manner - you should be ticketed and after 3 times in year you have shown you can't be responsible and should lose your license.

If you operate your bike in the same manner, the same thing should happen - you should be ticketed - the distinction being, you can't hurt a car driver (still waiting for that one news story on a biker killing a car driver) - however, if you operate your bike in a unsafe manner and hurt a pedestrian - see above, agg assault.

[makoti]

Clearly, I read a different article.
The one I read talked about the Auto lobby managing to create a situation where if WE (or walkers, for that matter) didn't do what THEY thought we should to protect ourselves, then whatever THEY did was ok. Run us down? S'ok, didn't have a helmet. Push us off the road? S'ok, wasn't wearing dayglo. Tsk tsk, what a shame.
Now Volvo wants us to spray paint ourselves. One state (I forget which) wants to make dayglo/reflective required. Wait, what? I already wear a helmet (for my own protection, because sometimes you fall down own your own). I already wear bright colors (all black kits are nuts, but it still shouldn't be required). I already have your damn blinky lights. I already stop at (most) lights (as many as the drivers I see making rolling stops, so I'm taking credit). Now I have to wear a certain type of government approved bright color? I have to spray myself down because you aren't paying attention (nice apple watch ya got there)?
That's what this was about - the shifting of the blame & responsibility to the victim by the Auto industry.
Yeah, we have to work together but "together" implies that both parties (as in that marriage) are working at it. This isn't "together", this is "You do this, you'll be safer from me".

[rugbysecondrow]

Here is the only the only thing that can be concluded by the above logic - because of the way some people ride it's somehow justifies or causes other people to get hit and killed by car drivers. I take issue with this. Also, marriage is a false analogy - marriage implies equality, there is nothing equal 200HP of 2 tons of steel versus self-propelled 20 pounds of steel.

If you EVER drive your car in an intimidating way against a cyclist - you should be locked up for aggravated assault.

If you EVER operate your car in an unsafe manner - you should be ticketed and after 3 times in year you have shown you can't be responsible and should lose your license.

If you operate your bike in the same manner, the same thing should happen - you should be ticketed - the distinction being, you can't hurt a car driver (still waiting for that one news story on a biker killing a car driver) - however, if you operate your bike in a unsafe manner and hurt a pedestrian - see above, agg assault.

The statement in bold, is your own conclusion, not related to any statement made by me or anybody else (that I read). Again, you seem to fabricate a position to argue against.

My opinion, if a cyclist chooses to accept the disparity in size, weight and speed, and participate in traffic on the roadway, they are accepting certain risks. One is that they are choosing to comingle with automobiles, semi trucks and other vehicles which can easily kill them or cause permanent damage. This doesn't make them at fault, but they accept a greater risk. A motorcyclist is in the same boat, they accept the risk because of their vulnerability. Their risk can be mitigate some by enhancing visibility, using standard rules and following consistent behavior etc. I do not believe, if an auto accidentally hits or collides with a bike, motorcycle, car, bus, farm vehicle etc, that the punishment should change based on the type of vehicle they strike on the roadway. The behavior during or prior to the accident should dictate the next steps (drinking, texting, drug use etc).

[bobswire]

Clearly, I read a different article.
The one I read talked about the Auto lobby managing to create a situation where if WE (or walkers, for that matter) didn't do what THEY thought we should to protect ourselves, then whatever THEY did was ok. Run us down? S'ok, didn't have a helmet. Push us off the road? S'ok, wasn't wearing dayglo. Tsk tsk, what a shame.
Now Volvo wants us to spray paint ourselves. One state (I forget which) wants to make dayglo/reflective required. Wait, what? I already wear a helmet (for my own protection, because sometimes you fall down own your own). I already wear bright colors (all black kits are nuts, but it still shouldn't be required). I already have your damn blinky lights. I already stop at (most) lights (as many as the drivers I see making rolling stops, so I'm taking credit). Now I have to wear a certain type of government approved bright color? I have to spray myself down because you aren't paying attention (nice apple watch ya got there)?
That's what this was about - the shifting of the blame & responsibility to the victim by the Auto industry.
Yeah, we have to work together but "together" implies that both parties (as in that marriage) are working at it. This isn't "together", this is "You do this, you'll be safer from me".

Thanks, though I got caught up with the"he said she said" discussion,your was supposed to be my point. I used the rape analogy (If she wasn't dressed so sexy she would not have been raped)instead of do as we say or we'll run your skinny ass over. :) Thank You

[zap]

This comes up what….every two weeks.

Motorists in the USA do not respect each other so motorists sure as hell do not respect cyclists.

[beeatnik]

If this thread gains traction (tee hee) it will play out like every other similar thread. The Best and Worst of Paceline.

Oh, I think Bike Snob is talking about power structures and how these constructs come to be accepted as "natural."

I can't even begin to enumerate the attitudes I modified after buying a Mini.

[sweet_johnny]

This is not an "or" issue, it's an "and." Drivers need to be attentive while they operate a vehicle AND cyclists need to be visible.

The safety of everyone on the road isn't a zero sum game. A product that makes a cyclist more visible doesn't free a motorist from responsibility, while passing it on to the cyclist. So, what I don't understand is the backlash against a product that does one thing - makes a cyclist more visible to motorists at night. Being visible, particularly at night, is a good thing. Furthermore, being visible to the moving object that is most likely harm a cyclist is a very good thing.

[Louis]

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, the sure way to reduce all manner of road accidents is to remove the driver's side air-bag and replace it with an 8" dagger pointed straight at the driver's heart.

That way they just might pay a bit more attention and drive more carefully.

[Gummee]

The statement in bold, is your own conclusion, not related to any statement made by me or anybody else (that I read). Again, you seem to fabricate a position to argue against.

My opinion, if a cyclist chooses to accept the disparity in size, weight and speed, and participate in traffic on the roadway, they are accepting certain risks. One is that they are choosing to comingle with automobiles, semi trucks and other vehicles which can easily kill them or cause permanent damage. This doesn't make them at fault, but they accept a greater risk. A motorcyclist is in the same boat, they accept the risk because of their vulnerability. Their risk can be mitigate some by enhancing visibility, using standard rules and following consistent behavior etc. I do not believe, if an auto accidentally hits or collides with a bike, motorcycle, car, bus, farm vehicle etc, that the punishment should change based on the type of vehicle they strike on the roadway. The behavior during or prior to the accident should dictate the next steps (drinking, texting, drug use etc).

There's a coupla big threads over on ADVRider (big moto forum) that have motorcyclists kvetching about bicycles.

The latest is down in Jo Momma where that semi-truck ran over that cyclist and now its the cyclist's fault. After all... he shouldn't have been riding there yadda yadda yadda. Trot out the usual 'run em over' stuff.

Yeah, the irony is lost on them

I keep trying to point out that what happens to bicycles is also happening to motos, but they don't want to hear any of it.

Aaah well. Won't stop me from trying.

M

[brando]

Not a day goes by when I'm commuting into and out of the SF financial district without multiple cyclists doing stupid things in traffic forcing drivers to have quick reflexes. Yesterday I'm turning right and a bike comes out of my left blind spot, cuts in front and turns right.

The pervasive attitude that cars and bikes have equal entitlement to the road is a great mantra until the laws of physics get in the way.

As a cyclist, bad drivers are certainly an issue. But cyclists can be obnoxious and irresponsible on their bikes as well.

Did you notice any double-parked vehicles obstructing 90% of the road? The smell of burning mj wafting from any driver's side windows? Drivers on the phone? Any Muni buses hurtling through full red lights? Humans defecating in middle of the street?

These are things I see daily as I ride. Not sure why cyclists annoy you so specifically.

[Anarchist]

America is a bully society. They don't care about us.

Generally speaking, they don't care about anybody else.

Not just us.

And as to this .... "America is a bully society" ... Absolutely true.

[shovelhd]

This is not an "or" issue, it's an "and." Drivers need to be attentive while they operate a vehicle AND cyclists need to be visible.

The safety of everyone on the road isn't a zero sum game. A product that makes a cyclist more visible doesn't free a motorist from responsibility, while passing it on to the cyclist. So, what I don't understand is the backlash against a product that does one thing - makes a cyclist more visible to motorists at night. Being visible, particularly at night, is a good thing. Furthermore, being visible to the moving object that is most likely harm a cyclist is a very good thing.

Thank you. Lots of defeatist attitudes and finger pointing in this thread.

[fuzzalow]

The crux of what the Op-Ed is getting at is a rejection of adding requirements to the basic manner in which bicycles have always been ridden in daylight. Whether these added legalities be in the form of mandatory helmet laws or high-visibility markings/clothing. The writer also opines that this "scope-creep" imposed to bicyclists might have undertones in exonerating negligent and lax driving behaviour of motorists towards the safety of other vehicles on a public roadway. All common occurrences of what a motorist would & should normally encounter on a public roadway as a consequence of operating a motor vehicle.

I agree with all of this. Anything that allows a motorist even the hint that they can drive even more irresponsibly or stupider than they already do is not a goal the serves anybody. This is one more degradation to the fabric of society resultant from the the vile influence of car culture.

The car companies want to sell more cars. They don't care how and what it costs in misleadingly convincing their buyers to feel more special and entitled as long as they can ultimately convince a customer to buy the cars that the automobile manufacturers want to sell. They also have to sell in big numbers so any imbecile that can buy the car is to the level of customer they have to pander to.

To conflate bad behaviour of cyclists, night-time riding & lighting requirements, mandatory helmet laws, etc etc etc is just obfuscation to the fundamental requirement in legally operating a motor vehicle in safety and responsibility. And to that requirement and that requirement alone, the onus and responsibility is to the motor vehicle operator. You know, the sir or madame that was required to take a driving test and to carry insurance on themselves and their vehicle before being permitted onto a public roadway.

I have no doubt cyclists are the worst at shooting themselves in the foot. On this one however, the subject matter is neither the bicyclists or even the drivers but about the car companies and their self-serving interests and motivations.

[Louis]

Generally speaking, they don't care about anybody else.

Not just us.

And as to this .... "America is a bully society" ... Absolutely true.

The fact that the NFL is the most popular sport must mean something.

[velomonkey]

The statement in bold, is your own conclusion, not related to any statement made by me or anybody else (that I read). Again, you seem to fabricate a position to argue against.

My opinion, if a cyclist chooses to accept the disparity in size, weight and speed, and participate in traffic on the roadway, they are accepting certain risks. One is that they are choosing to comingle with automobiles, semi trucks and other vehicles which can easily kill them or cause permanent damage. This doesn't make them at fault, but they accept a greater risk.

It's not a statement - it's a conclusion - that's a substantial distinction.

So by riding a bike I accept a risk - um, yea, I do the same when I walk, when I chew food, when I use a public bathroom - I'm totally losing you - do you think if I go over to the SMART car BB - owners will be telling other owners that their driving effects how other drivers respond to them - I doubt it . . . the only responsible party, EVER, is the responsible party, not the victim - helmet laws and reporting on riders wearing a helmet are red herrings and you know it.

Simply put, what someone else did on their bike has NO standing on someone driving aggressive towards me. Period.

[Louis]

Simply put, what someone else did on their bike has NO standing on someone driving aggressive towards me. Period.

Not sure what you mean by "no standing."

Does that mean it has no effect, ever, or are you saying it should not have an effect, but it might?

[velomonkey]

Not sure what you mean by "no standing."

Does that mean it has no effect, ever, or are you saying it should not have an effect, but it might?

Meaning it has no standing in excusing their behavior.

Look, I understand that some jerk running a red light makes people irritated.

Catholic priests have molested children - do I get to drive aggressive to any priest I see?

Blue BMWs (of which I own one) are a car favored by jerk drivers - do I get to put them in their place anytime I see a blue BMW?

Motocycle riders sometimes group up and brake check me in my car - and every other driver around so they can do their stupid illegal crap - does that excuse me putting the lone law abiding, non-helmet wearing motorcyclist in their place with my car?

The answer to all these questions would be "NO." Hells no.

I will contend, lycra seems to drive people bat ···· crazy. Also, it amazes me, 25 years I've been doing this - I ride in a great area, a safe area and still it amazes me that every ride I do I come across some driver(s) who will do more to avoid a dead squirrel than they will to give me 3 feet (and I'm in the gutter getting my Vittoria's chewed up)

[Louis]

OK.

I didn't think you were saying that idiot cyclists' actions didn't affect other folks' attitudes toward the rest of us. (cause most folks think they do, and I tend to agree)

[velomonkey]

OK.

I didn't think you were saying that idiot cyclists' actions didn't affect other folks' attitudes toward the rest of us. (cause most folks think they do, and I tend to agree)

Attitude is "I don't care for bike riders, they run red lights and feel entitled" (I love the entitled thing, but whatever)

Action is buzzing someone just because they are on a bike or putting them in their place - big, big, big difference. In fact, nothing shared between the two.

There is no excuse. Period. White People seem to think Bill Cosby had a point with his whole "you don't speak English, you don't . . . ." - African Americans thought he was a self-ritghous jackass.

Guess I'm African American. BTW, Bill Cosby, it would appear, raped some women. Just saying . . . . .

[Louis]

There's a simple connection: the driver's attitude will affect his or her actions.

[velomonkey]

There's a simple connection: the driver's attitude will affect his or her actions.

And thus proving my above point - the conclusion to this sorry logic is that someone else running a red light somehow excuses a driver's behavior towards me or the vast majority of riders who are law-abiding riders. Sorry, bro. You want to live in that world be my guest, that's the lowest expectation I have ever heard. Literally, it's really, really low (and what's with acting all butt-hurt when I draw the conclusion - at least you said it, good on you).

Let me give you a simple rule for life - it works every where even in marriage

"You can't control all your feelings, you can control all your actions."

Bro, as a fellow bike rider, you let me down :help: (sorry to play that card, but in this case - it's called for)

[Louis]

Bro, as a fellow bike rider, you let me down

Ha! That's a good one. I'm totally crushed.

Do you not think Michael Slager's attitude affected his actions, when he fired 8 shots at an unarmed man running away from him, then planted his Taser by Walter Scott's still-warm body?

[velomonkey]

Ha! That's a good one. I'm totally crushed.

Do you not think Michael Slager's attitude affected his actions, when he fired 8 shots at an unarmed man running away from him, then planted his Taser by Walter Scott's still-warm body?


O. M. G. So, you are telling me that other African American's are responsible for Slager's actions of shooting an unarmed man and then planting evidence - for real, that's the conclusion to what you just laid out. Ruby like's emoticons so :bike:

Here's my thought on Slager - in order: Scumbag, Douche, murderer, poor excuse for a human, stain on the cops, liar, racist.

hope this helps, but I suspect not :mad:

[beeatnik]

The crux of what the Op-Ed is getting at is a rejection of adding requirements to the basic manner in which bicycles have always been ridden in daylight. Whether these added legalities be in the form of mandatory helmet laws or high-visibility markings/clothing. The writer also opines that this "scope-creep" imposed to bicyclists might have undertones in exonerating negligent and lax driving behaviour of motorists towards the safety of other vehicles on a public roadway. All common occurrences of what a motorist would & should normally encounter on a public roadway as a consequence of operating a motor vehicle.

I agree with all of this. Anything that allows a motorist even the hint that they can drive even more irresponsibly or stupider than they already do is not a goal the serves anybody. This is one more degradation to the fabric of society resultant from the the vile influence of car culture.

The car companies want to sell more cars. They don't care how and what it costs in misleadingly convincing their buyers to feel more special and entitled as long as they can ultimately convince a customer to buy the cars that the automobile manufacturers want to sell. They also have to sell in big numbers so any imbecile that can buy the car is to the level of customer they have to pander to.

To conflate bad behaviour of cyclists, night-time riding & lighting requirements, mandatory helmet laws, etc etc etc is just obfuscation to the fundamental requirement in legally operating a motor vehicle in safety and responsibility. And to that requirement and that requirement alone, the onus and responsibility is to the motor vehicle operator. You know, the sir or madame that was required to take a driving test and to carry insurance on themselves and their vehicle before being permitted onto a public roadway.

I have no doubt cyclists are the worst at shooting themselves in the foot. On this one however, the subject matter is neither the bicyclists or even the drivers but about the car companies and their self-serving interests and motivations.

fuzzalow, sir, I continue to like your style

[shovelhd]

There's a simple connection: the driver's attitude will affect his or her actions.

A driver's perception of other road users, cyclists in particular, will affect their attitude. I know I'm careful driving near cyclists as I don't want to hurt anyone and they (we) can be unpredictable. Not true for everyone.

I get what the author is saying however I feel it is unproductive, snarky, and accusing. We need to fix our own problems first before demanding others change their attitudes toward us.

[velomonkey]

I get what the author is saying however I feel it is unproductive, snarky, and accusing. We need to fix our own problems first before demanding others change their attitudes toward us.


Or considering there are 700 bikers killed a year by cars - that drivers are paying less attention - that drivers are being more aggressive - that drivers have the AAA and car companies and we have League of American Wheelman and bikes belong - we can see this for what it is - a one sided problem.

Snarky, accusing and unproductive - I could use those same words about bikers telling other bikers to shape up.

Still waiting for that story of a bike rider killing that nice car driver.

[shovelhd]

Once again you perpetuate the "us versus them" attitude, trivialize the importance of how we are perceived by other road users, and point the finger to where the "real problem" lies instead of offering ways that we can become more at parity with those around us.

[velomonkey]

Once again you perpetuate the "us versus them" attitude, trivialize the importance of how we are perceived by other road users, and point the finger to where the "real problem" lies instead of offering ways that we can become more at parity with those around us.


Saying it's one side isn't "us versus them" - you said that, not me. Me complaining on an anonymous BB about other riders will do exacatly ZERO to change a drivers perception. Zero.

Explain to me, like I am a 10 year old, how some idiot running a red light in Boston is the "Real Problem" - and the result of that idiot running the red light in Boston is a driver texting and smashing their car into someone riding to the right in a ten foot shoulder in Maine. Explain that to me.

Or, the red neck truck driver who buzzes me and puts me in their place - explain that one. . . .

Once again you are saying bikers are the Real Problem. Total fallacy. I take issue with that.

[shovelhd]

No I did not. I said that we are a part of the problem and should fix that first before pointing fingers at others and demanding changes.

Distracted driving is a separate issue.

[velomonkey]

Distracted driving is a separate issue.

They are all cars, Shovel. They can all kill me. It's their world (at least they think it is) and I'm just trying to live with it.

Any death of a bike rider by distracted driving or aggressive driving is inexcusable. Period. A distinction without a difference.

[oldpotatoe]

They are all cars, Shovel. They can all kill me. It's their world (at least they think it is) and I'm just trying to live with it.

Any death of a bike rider by distracted driving or aggressive driving is inexcusable. Period. A distinction without a difference.

Is what's important and the problem..being on a bike doesn't make it any better or worse.

I ride a lot, I ride defensively. I assume they don't see me. I don't ride places w/o a shoulder during the week. Being pissed off all the time with car drivers...I have so little time to ride as it is..I'm not going to goon up my 'mechanical meditation' by being pissed off..IMHO. YMMV. ETC...

[Gummee]

I will contend, lycra seems to drive people bat ···· crazy. Also, it amazes me, 25 years I've been doing this - I ride in a great area, a safe area and still it amazes me that every ride I do I come across some driver(s) who will do more to avoid a dead squirrel than they will to give me 3 feet (and I'm in the gutter getting my Vittoria's chewed up)
I've noticed that too. Heaven help you if you run over a cute little squirrel, but that guy in lycra that may be a father, brother, son and has someone that cares about them?

Never enters their minds to give em room.

It amazes me.

...AND... it hasn't gotten any better over the last few years despite cars being (typically) smaller and safer.

M

[Gummee]

No I did not. I said that we are a part of the problem and should fix that first before pointing fingers at others and demanding changes.The problem in your argument is that we (I) can be doing everything right and STILL get hassled/injured/killed by someone 'trying to teach us/me a lesson.'

Distracted driving is a separate issue.Leads back to NO ONE should be 'distracted' driving or riding anything that can kill another person. I strongly suspect that's why German cars didn't have cupholders for the longest time: drivers are expected to (get this!) PAY ATTENTION to their driving.

Go figure, huh?

Americans seem to treat the car as an extension of their kitchen/bathroom/den/entertainment center and not something that requires attention to operate safely.

Why there's not (more) mass chaos on the roads is beyond me. Add something 'different' into the mix and you get what we deal with on a daily basis.

M

[shovelhd]

So why are they trying to teach you a lesson? Because of the perception drivers have of us that needs to change first before we can throw down the vulnerable road user argument. Exactly my point. Exactly.

OP gets it. The distracted driver issue is separate and needs to be addressed for everyone on the road. Singling ourselves out as special invites perception to the forefront and could do more harm than good.

[velomonkey]

So why are they trying to teach you a lesson? Because of the perception drivers have of us that needs to change first before we can throw down the vulnerable road user argument. Exactly my point. Exactly.

OP gets it. The distracted driver issue is separate and needs to be addressed for everyone on the road. Singling ourselves out as special invites perception to the forefront and could do more harm than good.

False, False, False. And even if true - it does not excuse their behavior of using a 2 ton killing machine as a sort of reprimand for what someone else may have done in traffic - EVER. What freaking world do you live in.

You ever ridden way, way, way out in the boonies. You know places that are hundreds of miles from urban hipsters on fixies and people in a rush. A place where stop signs and red lights are separated by tens of miles. You get put in your place there, too.

Cars being aggressive to bikers is a omnipresent problem and if suddenly every rider stopped running red lights and stop signs - there would be some cure, but it would NOT be a panacea.

BTW, I think your summary on the OP is wrong, too - but he/she can speak for him or herself.

[shovelhd]

I live in a world where we are responsible for our actions first and foremost. I've made my point and you disagree. I'm going to leave it at that.

[malcolm]

I don't think the average driver is a villain that has it out for cyclists. The guys/gals in trucks trying to brush you off the road are not the problem in general. Don't get me wrong they are a problem just not the biggest one. It's the parent in a mini van with 10 screaming kids doing everything except paying attention to driving, the idiot texting, putting on make up. Look at most cycling deaths I hear of and they are from people not paying attention, not from some automobile serial killer.

People drive everyday, next to eating, drinking and sleeping it what most westerners do most. It's easy as in takes very little skill. These facts mean we ultimately take it for granted and don't give it the respect it deserves.
If you really stop and think about it driving a 3000lb projectile at 70mph while typing on a tiny key board sounds insane but folks that ordinarily wouldn't do anything risky do it everyday, because they have become so accommodated to driving they don't perceive the risk.
Teens that have grown up in the post MAAD world that would never drink and drive routinely text and drive all the while data is accumulating to suggest it's even more dangerous.

It's the relationship we have with our car that's the problem and the fact that most adults haven't been on a bike since they were kids and even kids don't ride like they once did.
Fellow cyclists are probably the safest drivers around cyclists not because they are better people but they feel a kinship and have an appreciation for what they are doing and understand the inherent dangers.

[zap]

So why are they trying to teach you a lesson? Because of the perception drivers have of us that needs to change first before we can throw down the vulnerable road user argument. Exactly my point. Exactly.

OP gets it. The distracted driver issue is separate and needs to be addressed for everyone on the road. Singling ourselves out as special invites perception to the forefront and could do more harm than good.

As a motorist who has driven extensively in over 20 countries, the motoring IQ and aggression of the typical American motorist is the worst. Motorists in the USA do not respect one another.

Now, if motorists do not respect one another, do you really think that these very same motorists will ever respect cyclists…..say cyclists who are far superior beings in that they put foot down at every ss and red light, signal every single move, have multiple lights and reflectors bright enough to blind god, wear big colorful bicycle helmets with supplemental airbags, ride far right, ride single file with 10 yard gap between cyclists……….

I'm sorry, I just don't see this happening.

I'm very aware of my vulnerability as a cyclist and am proactive in my safety…..sometimes in violation of motoring law.I've ridden/raced bicycles in a few countries and I find that cycling in the USA (in/near big metro area's) to be most dangerous/least pleasurable of all.

As to the bold in your post above-the lesson these simpletons in control of a weapon want to teach us……Get off the god damn road.

Sadly, there are some motorists who intentionally hit and killed cyclists…….just to teach 'em a lesson.

[bobswire]

Velomonkey,I'm with you, I'm sick and tired of having to defend being a cyclist because of some other asshat on a bike. I'm also tired of other cyclists lecturing cyclists that it is all our fault and to constantly apologize for being a cyclist to cagers (as I referred to them when my cycle had a motor attached). Over and out.

[Louis]

O. M. G. So, you are telling me that other African American's are responsible for Slager's actions of shooting an unarmed man and then planting evidence - for real, that's the conclusion to what you just laid out.

Dude, what planet are you living on?

The specific question being discussed was whether one person's attitude would affect his actions. You said they wouldn't. (Quote: "In fact, nothing shared between the two.") I asked if Slager's attitude affected his actions.

[velomonkey]

Dude, what planet are you living on?

The specific question being discussed was whether one person's attitude would affect his actions. You said they wouldn't. (Quote: "In fact, nothing shared between the two.") I asked if Slager's attitude affected his actions.

I don't understand your question - the only person responsible for Slanger is Slanger. Period. Any other talk is noise.

[rugbysecondrow]

Velomonkey,I'm with you, I'm sick and tired of having to defend being a cyclist because of some other asshat on a bike. I'm also tired of other cyclists lecturing cyclists that it is all our fault and to constantly apologize for being a cyclist to cagers (as I referred to them when my cycle had a motor attached). Over and out.

I don't think anybody here said that it is all cyclists fault. The issue is whether cyclists can make improvements to enhance their safety and role on the road.

The answer to the last question is Yes.

[David Kirk]

This doesn't feel like a "drivers vs. riders" kind of thing to me. It feels more like an issue of self centered entitlement. All too many of us, both drivers and riders alike, seem to think that the universe revolves around us and that if we want to drive while texting or ride 3 abreast then we have the god given right to do so damn it......and if need be I'll prove it by infringing on your rights and compromising your safety.

If everyone was just more aware and considerate of others most of this would take care of itself. As much as I'd like to think the big 'we' will have a change of attitude I'm not holding my breath and I'll ride with eyes in the back of my head.

dave

[oldpotatoe]

I don't think anybody said that it is all cyclists fault. The issue is whether cyclists can make improvements to enhance their safety and role on the road.

The answer to the last question is Yes.

Are there a lot of crappy car drivers? Absolutely but I ride a lot and can't remember the last time a car driver dusted me off, 'put me in my place', 'had his way with me' or anything else where I saw that he was teaching me a 'lesson' or trying to intentionally hurt me. I had a guy throw a half eaten cheese burger at me out of a P/U truck once....and I was really hungry, but that was 10 years ago.

I see car drivers do dumb things all the time tho but no overt aggression I have seen. I guess it happens, for whatever reason, but I don't see it, and won't screw up my limited opportunities to ride by being bent out of shape as I pull outta my driveway.

Out

[rugbysecondrow]

Are there a lot of crappy car drivers? Absolutely but I ride a lot and can't remember the last time a car driver dusted me off, 'put me in my place', 'had his way with me' or anything else where I saw that he was teaching me a 'lesson' or trying to intentionally hurt me. I had a guy throw a half eaten cheese burger at me out of a P/U truck once....and I was really hungry, but that was 10 years ago.

I see car drivers do dumb things all the time tho but no overt aggression I have seen. I guess it happens, for whatever reason, but I don't see it, and won't screw up my limited opportunities to ride by being bent out of shape as I pull outta my driveway.

Out

I agree.

[93legendti]

Are there a lot of crappy car drivers? Absolutely but I ride a lot and can't remember the last time a car driver dusted me off, 'put me in my place', 'had his way with me' or anything else where I saw that he was teaching me a 'lesson' or trying to intentionally hurt me. I had a guy throw a half eaten cheese burger at me out of a P/U truck once....and I was really hungry, but that was 10 years ago.

I see car drivers do dumb things all the time tho but no overt aggression I have seen. I guess it happens, for whatever reason, but I don't see it, and won't screw up my limited opportunities to ride by being bent out of shape as I pull outta my driveway.

Out
I agree. I pick my routes and I hug the right side of the lane. I see plenty of cyclists around here riding high volume, 1 lane, 45 mph posted speed roads with no rideable shoulder and a rarely travelled sidewalk...this is all within 3-4 miles of my house... They do not deserve to get hit.

But every time I see one, I think they are nuts...they don't deserve to get hit. But you couldn't pay me to bike on these roads.

[benb]

I don't think any of the ideas like licensing, mandating helmets, mandating special clothes, reflectors, lighting, etc.. are going to make a bit of a difference.

It is surprising someone was over on Adventure Rider and saw them complaining about cyclists. Sounds like a much more naive group of motorcyclists than just about anyone I encountered in my 11 years of motorcycle riding.

Motorcyclists already have to do most of the things the car apologists are hoping bicyclists have to do. It doesn't make a damn difference. Cars wipe out motorcycle riders in the same ways they mostly wipe out bicyclists. (The Oncoming left turn and the Right Hook) The motorcyclist almost always gets the blame, and if the car driver makes sure to kill the motorcyclist there will only be one side of the story. Every time a motorcyclist gets killed motorcyclists get up in arms on forums like this one, the press always makes sure to mention whether the motorcyclist had a helmet on or was licensed or had tattoos or anything else that can be used to damage the motorcyclists character. Motorcyclists have the same "Us vs Them" mentality that bicyclists do.

About the only differences are moto helmets other safety gear are way more effective than bike helmets (because the sweat issue isn't as bad) and there seems to be much better data on motorcycle accidents because they are full licensed. Most motorcycle accidents are the riders fault with no one else involved. That is probably true in bicycling too, but no one really knows as so many of the "JRA" accidents never get reported. Motorcycling is also a lot more social and less elitist so there is a bit more support & solidarity from groups of riders when something bad happens.

[Ray]

A chain is as strong as it's weakest link. Stupid drivers make crashes more likely, stupid riders make crashes more likely, bad conditions make crashes more likely, hard to see vehicles (of any sort) and pedestrians make crashes more likely. Angry drivers and angry riders may also, but at least they're busy being highly aware, so unless they're actual psychopaths who are willing to intentionally hit someone, they're probably less dangerous than the spaced out or distracted person with no ill intent...

Of these things, what can we control and what can't we? We can control our own behavior. That's about 99% of what we can control. Maybe, MAYBE, we can have some very minimal impact on how others behave through our own behavior, but probably not most of the time. And maybe, MAYBE, if we're active enough or connected enough or committed enough, we might be able to have some impact on future conditions (bike facilities, stronger laws to protect cyclists, etc), but that won't help you on THIS ride.

But for the most part all we can do is conduct ourselves in the safest manner possible, when we're riding and when we're driving. And hope like hell the other people on the road are doing the same thing - but we can't control that, so that's really just down to hoping and trusting. And recognizing the very real possibility that they're not and then just hoping we stay lucky.

No point arguing about who's right and who's wrong - if a cyclist gets hit, you're equally screwed whether you were in the right or in the wrong... I've had four really scary VERY close calls in the years I've been riding (plus several others that were a lot less close and a lot less scary). Three of the four were my own damn fault, one was the motorist's fault. If I'd been hit and killed in three of those, the motorist shouldn't have been punished for it. In the other one, they damn strait should have been. But I'm not sure how well a cop would have been able to sort any of them out, except one of the ones that was my fault, and for which there were a few people with me who saw my stupidity almost get me flattened.

Sometimes it's simple and clear, like the bishop who killed Tom down in Baltimore or that doc who took out those riders on an LA canyon road. Lot's of times it's not. All we can do is take care of ourselves as well as we can and hope for the best...

-Ray

[velomonkey]

This is from my Fly6 - I have many, many more. The constant theme seems to be trucks - pickup trucks, dump trucks - trucks.

And, no, I've never seen a truck and decided to put them in their place because of some other truck driver.

If you can't look at this and see it for what it is - then you see a black dress and I a blue dress, but the dress is, in fact, blue.

And FYI, there wasn't a single car coming the opposite direction and my buddy was on my left (I was on the inside) - we were riding 2 abreast as afforded to us by law, we single up when we need to - but this road was dead straight, wide, open and had little traffic. Clearly I am as far to the right as possible as indicated with the white line.

[makoti]

I don't think anybody here said that it is all cyclists fault. The issue is whether cyclists can make improvements to enhance their safety and role on the road.

The answer to the last question is Yes.

That is NOT the issue in the article. That is the issue you've decided to make this, just like the writer's point that the auto industry has chosen and been very successful at making safety OUR problem, not theirs. WE are the ones who have to take responsibility for keeping ourselves safe by wearing a helmet, wearing bright clothes, spray painting ourselves, staying off roads that may be better to take us to where we need to go because they lack a simple shoulder, or because the cars all want to be there.
The issue is how can cars and cyclists co-exist? We cannot do it alone. You can do everything you should to keep yourself safe & still get hit by someone whos phone is more interesting than the road to them.

[malcolm]

This is from my Fly6 - I have many, many more. The constant theme seems to be trucks - pickup trucks, dump trucks - trucks.

And, no, I've never seen a truck and decided to put them in their place because of some other truck driver.

If you can't look at this and see it for what it is - then you see a black dress and I a blue dress, but the dress is, in fact, blue.

And FYI, there wasn't a single car coming the opposite direction.

I hear you and these guys are a problem but they are not the ones killing cyclists. It the distracted driver or drunk that runs over you from behind.

It's a bad idea to pass that close to a cyclist or anybody but at least they are aware of you and see you.

[benb]

This is from my Fly6 - I have many, many more. The constant theme seems to be trucks - pickup trucks, dump trucks - trucks.

And, no, I've never seen a truck and decided to put them in their place because of some other truck driver.

If you can't look at this and see it for what it is - then you see a black dress and I a blue dress, but the dress is, in fact, blue.

And FYI, there wasn't a single car coming the opposite direction.

What is going on in this picture? Is it from a country where you drive on the left?

If it's from the US it looks like a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road.

[kevinvc]

What is going on in this picture? Is it from a country where you drive on the left?

If it's from the US it looks like a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road.

It's from a rear facing camera.

[Anarchist]

This is from my Fly6 - I have many, many more. The constant theme seems to be trucks - pickup trucks, dump trucks - trucks.

And, no, I've never seen a truck and decided to put them in their place because of some other truck driver.

If you can't look at this and see it for what it is - then you see a black dress and I a blue dress, but the dress is, in fact, blue.

And FYI, there wasn't a single car coming the opposite direction.

I'm not sure I see the issue here. You are getting passed by a dump truck. I get passed by trucks all the time and without any more room than this. The guy is over far enough that you are fine, you have road, he has road.

What's the issue??

[zap]

The truck is passing a bit close but not all that unusual. Don't we (cyclists) all have short left forearm hair?

[velomonkey]

I'm not sure I see the issue here. You are getting passed by a dump truck. I get passed by trucks all the time and without any more room than this. The guy is over far enough that you are fine, you have road, he has road.

What's the issue??

The law is 3 feet, he is given me about 18 inches - even though the road is wide, straight and totally open free of traffic. It's a sunny Saturday in August - maybe he's pissed he's driving a dump trunk and I'm on a bike with friends - maybe he just hates the site of lycra - it doesn't matter. It's a freaking dump truck moving at about 40mph - and he comes within a foot and change and you think it's fine.

This isn't horse shoe and hand grenades - it's not either you're safe so no room to complain - or you get hit from behind. The grey area is buzzing a biker - and when it goes wrong, and it does, we die.

What's the issue :help:

[Anarchist]

The law is 3 feet, he is given me about 18 inches - even though the road is wide, straight and totally open free of traffic. It's a sunny Saturday in August - maybe he's pissed he's driving a dump trunk and I'm on a bike with friends - maybe he just hates the site of lycra - it doesn't matter. It's a freaking dump truck moving at about 40mph - and he comes within a foot and change and you think it's fine.

This isn't horse shoe and hand grenades - it's not either you're safe so no room to complain - or you get hit from behind. The grey area is buzzing a biker - and when it goes wrong, and it does, we die.

What's the issue :help:

Honestly, who cares if the law is 3 feet. Really.

He is giving you more than enough room to ride safely, and an extra 12 inches doesn't make the truck any smaller or slower.

You really need to take a breath.

[velomonkey]

Honestly, who cares if the law is 3 feet. Really.

He is giving you more than enough room to ride safely, and an extra 12 inches doesn't make the truck any smaller or slower.

You really need to take a breath.

You know, whatever, I'm not gonna argue this with you or anyone - thankfully cause that driver gave me 12 inches I can, as you said so eloquently, take a breath. I'm a lucky person thanks to him.

I'm signing out cause I don't want to say something out of line.

Thanks, man, you totally put this into perspective.

[kevinvc]

Honestly, who cares if the law is 3 feet. Really.

He is giving you more than enough room to ride safely, and an extra 12 inches doesn't make the truck any smaller or slower.

You really need to take a breath.

This attitude sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. The driver is breaking the law and putting the rider in life-threatening danger for no practical reason whatsoever, yet the rider should just be grateful because he wasn't killed? The 3' law (which is an inadequate amount IMO) exists for a reason. Bikes or cars wobble or swerve for a variety of reasons, e.g. avoiding debris, hitting pavement cracks, getting drafted by multi-ton vehicles passing too closely, etc.

It is not hyperbolic to say that the rider's life was endangered; there was no margin for error by either party. And again, it was for no valid reason whatsoever since the driver could easily have moved over a couple of feet without any delay or danger to himself or anyone else. I don't know if he was not paying attention / distracted , trying to intimidate the rider, or unaware of the risk he was creating and the motive is irrelevant. This type of behavior is so common that some bike riders actually have been trained to believe there is nothing wrong with it. I strongly disagree with this sentiment.

[BobO]

Are there a lot of crappy car drivers? Absolutely but I ride a lot and can't remember the last time a car driver dusted me off, 'put me in my place', 'had his way with me' or anything else where I saw that he was teaching me a 'lesson' or trying to intentionally hurt me.

I had one last week. I was in the 5 foot wide bike lane where there is a merge between the bike lane and the right turn lane, bike has right of way. I was heading straight in the bike lane, there is a 200 yard merge area, ample space. One car went past on my left and turned right safely in front of me. The second car slowed and turned right safely behind me. The third, a tan Nissan Altima accelerated dramatically and turned abruptly in front of me, missed my front wheel by inches. His left hand was out the drivers window, single finger salute yelling, "get the eff off the road." There was ample space both in front of and behind me. I had done nothing, literally nothing to him other than be there on his road. There was no reason for us to interact at all, he could have merged behind or in front of me without conflict. He went out of his way to create the situation.

I seriously doubt he was trying to cause me physical harm, but there's little doubt he was sending a message. I have been riding for just a year and a half and I have had several incident like this. A few months ago I had a guy in a red 57 Chevy swing into the marked eight foot wide bike lane next to me, honk his horn and point at the MUP adjacent to the road. Another message, "you don't belong on the road."

While Tucson is generally a very bike friendly place, there is definitely a sub-set of people who are militantly against us being on the roads.

[firerescuefin]

Honestly, who cares if the law is 3 feet. Really.

He is giving you more than enough room to ride safely, and an extra 12 inches doesn't make the truck any smaller or slower.

You really need to take a breath.

That 12 inches allows all parties an additional margin of error and is the reason why the law is 3 feet and not 18 inches, but you knew that already. I often am puzzled by your desire to enter into this line of reasoning. It's not isolated to this post. And FWIW, you seem intelligent/have something to offer here.

[zap]

The 3' law (which is an inadequate amount IMO) exists for a reason.

Some motorists believe that cyclists are the ones to give motorists 3ft.

I'm not kidding, heard it…..more than once.

[makoti]

This attitude sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.

Perfect analogy. "They didn't kill me. They were very nice."

[93legendti]

I'm not sure I see the issue here. You are getting passed by a dump truck. I get passed by trucks all the time and without any more room than this. The guy is over far enough that you are fine, you have road, he has road.

What's the issue??

I wouldn't ride that road. Way too narrow a shoulder and a rail to boot.

[fuzzalow]

That photo of the truck passing on the road: to my judgment that driver looks like he gave the 3 feet mandated by law. I'm estimating the truck tire height to be about 3 feet tall and that distance is what exists between the tire contact patch and the white line in the roadway. The white line is the constant in the driver's sight picture that you can expect to get and NOT the variable width of 3 feet from wherever you happen to be at that moment in space. I am assuming you have the skill to ride to the right of the white line for miles on end with little fuss because if you don't/can't you will edge yourself closer to the kill-zone.

Yeah the law might imply 3 feet from where you are but if you get 3 feet from the white line that's good enough. Take what you can get and don't be a prima donna. I agree that rail isn't ideal because it blocks your bail-out route to your right but on a normal ride it should be OK because you should not need to bail out unless you somehow see it coming. And from behind you will not see it coming.

Mind you, I'm not making excuses for the drivers. But as a cyclist you can't be crying about not getting it perfect the way you think you should get it. That 3 feet is progress.

[oldpotatoe]

I had one last week. I was in the 5 foot wide bike lane where there is a merge between the bike lane and the right turn lane, bike has right of way. I was heading straight in the bike lane, there is a 200 yard merge area, ample space. One car went past on my left and turned right safely in front of me. The second car slowed and turned right safely behind me. The third, a tan Nissan Altima accelerated dramatically and turned abruptly in front of me, missed my front wheel by inches. His left hand was out the drivers window, single finger salute yelling, "get the eff off the road." There was ample space both in front of and behind me. I had done nothing, literally nothing to him other than be there on his road. There was no reason for us to interact at all, he could have merged behind or in front of me without conflict. He went out of his way to create the situation.

I seriously doubt he was trying to cause me physical harm, but there's little doubt he was sending a message. I have been riding for just a year and a half and I have had several incident like this. A few months ago I had a guy in a red 57 Chevy swing into the marked eight foot wide bike lane next to me, honk his horn and point at the MUP adjacent to the road. Another message, "you don't belong on the road."

While Tucson is generally a very bike friendly place, there is definitely a sub-set of people who are militantly against us being on the roads.

Get his license and call the cops..He won't get a ticket but he will be talked to. Or follow him if you can, stop by him when he parks, call the cops.

[velomonkey]

But as a cyclist you can't be crying about not getting it perfect the way you think you should get it. That 3 feet is progress.

Yea, I knew it was my fault and that I was being a prime donna. And, yea, you're right when the law says give 3 feet to a bike rider - there's nothing exact about it, cause who knows what 3 feet is - and you're right, it's 3 feet from the white line not the human being who is exposed and vuneralbe (of which I was to the right as per the pic - but you're forensic examination took that into account, I'm sure).

It is true, laws typically do imply and metrics stated in feet are vague.

I'll dry my tears off and get back on the saddle. Actually I have a ride today. Thanks, Fuzz - oh I'm 'implying' a lot in what I'm saying here, hopefully you're picking up what I'm laying down. . . .

[rugbysecondrow]

I agree Fuzz. Looks like three feet to me and the law worked: truck passed safely and the rider made it home safely. Win, win. Seems like the system worked.

Once somebody has determined that they are a victim, they will wear it both like a badge and a yoke. Lots of that going on in this thread.




That photo of the truck passing on the road: to my judgment that driver looks like he gave the 3 feet mandated by law. I'm estimating the truck tire height to be about 3 feet tall and that distance is what exists between the tire contact patch and the white line in the roadway. The white line is the constant in the driver's sight picture that you can expect to get and NOT the variable width of 3 feet from wherever you happen to be at that moment in space. I am assuming you have the skill to ride to the right of the white line for miles on end with little fuss because if you don't/can't you will edge yourself closer to the kill-zone.

Yeah the law might imply 3 feet from where you are but if you get 3 feet from the white line that's good enough. Take what you can get and don't be a prima donna. I agree that rail isn't ideal because it blocks your bail-out route to your right but on a normal ride it should be OK because you should not need to bail out unless you somehow see it coming. And from behind you will not see it coming.

Mind you, I'm not making excuses for the drivers. But as a cyclist you can't be crying about not getting it perfect the way you think you should get it. That 3 feet is progress.

[shovelhd]

That road is not a road that I would ride two abreast on.

[velomonkey]

Once somebody has determined that they are a victim, they will wear it both like a badge and a yoke. Lots of that going on in this thread.

Dont' call me a victim. I'm advocating, glad to see you're sticking to your normal "biker at fault." Ruby, bro . . . .:butt::no::mad::confused:

[velomonkey]

That road is not a road that I would ride two abreast on.

Shovel, as another fellow hall monitor I expect nothing less - with that said, and I in no way expect you to amend your statement.

That road is in Watch Hill, RI - it is dead flat, it is wide open, it has little traffic and what little traffic is on it is a car, not a truck. The entire ocean is to the right - it almost could not be more open. Amos was leading the ride, we ride two abreast, Aiden's guys ride 2 abreast on it, Arc En Ceil rides two down it, random groups ride 2 abreast, locals on their beach cruisers ride 2 abreast - or sometimes with their surf board sideways.

Now when Amos does his pace line drills on it, we're single file - otherwise two abreast, always. If the RI ramble ran through there I'd love to snap a picture of you - riding two abreast, cause I guarantee you would.

Like I said, I don't expect you to amend your statement, but thanks.

[rugbysecondrow]

Dont' call me a victim. I'm advocating, glad to see you're sticking to your normal "biker at fault." Ruby, bro . . . .:butt::no::mad::confused:


My man, I don't think you are a victim. I also don't think you an advocate.

Motorists and cyclist share a responsibility. That statement doesn't involve blame at all.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93legendti]

Just because to are allowed to do some thing doesn't mean you should. On a road like that (except with a bigger shoulder and no rail) we ride 2 abreast as well, until there is a car back and we switch to single file. The goal is to get home safely, not prove points or exercise rights. If there is more than sporadic traffic, it's single file.

Forcing a car passing 2 up riders into oncoming traffic doesn't always increase your safety...as you are now counting on 2 drivers avoiding each other within a smaller space.


I drive defensively. I ride defensively. Everyone should make their own choices. I make mine based upon safety.

[velomonkey]

I drive defensively. I ride defensively. Everyone should make their own choices. I make mine based upon safety.

You are judging me and a group of people by seeing one single snippet of a part of a road. I ride defensively, I make my own choices and I lead a far amount of group rides and typically people say I am one of the safest ride leaders out there. I also don't do something just cause the law says I can - I'm not trying to get the hospital and make a point - I'm trying to avoid the hospital at all costs.

Yes, a rail and a small shoulder are less than ideal, but those two things are not the only factors that determine doubling up or not. In my view traffic and a driver's view to knowingly move out and give room are equal or more important and on those two fronts it could not have been less traffic and could not have been a better vantage point.

It was a nice Saturday, some dude in a dump truck working on some millionaire's house saw some people on bikes and decided to come a little too close. Take my word, or judge me - you're free to do either. Thanks for the words, but really, you told me nothing I don't already know and frankly it's a bit smug for my liking.

[shovelhd]

Smug, from the guy who calls me a hall monitor.

I don't care who is on the ride or who is leading it. Group rides can be a problem anywhere if group think supercedes common sense. Everyone has their own measure of reasonable. Two abreast where reasonable is the MA standard, however I don't know about RI. With a one foot shoulder and ten wheel truck traffic I would not consider two abreast reasonable. You may. That's up to you. However other road users may not, and your photo shows why. This does not give the truck the right to pass too closely, but maybe he had no choice. Maybe truck traffic is rare on this road, only you know that if you ride it regularly. Given just what was shown, my choice would have been to ride single file.

[malcolm]

You are judging me and a group of people by seeing one single snippet of a part of a road. I ride defensively, I make my own choices and I lead a far amount of group rides and typically people say I am one of the safest ride leaders out there. I also don't do something just cause the law says I can - I'm not trying to get the hospital and make a point - I'm trying to avoid the hospital at all costs.

Yes, a rail and a small shoulder are less than ideal, but those two things are not the only factors that determine doubling up or not. In my view traffic and a driver's view to knowingly move out and give room are equal or more important and on those two fronts it could not have been less traffic and could not have been a better vantage point.

It was a nice Saturday, some dude in a dump truck working on some millionaire's house saw some people on bikes and decided to come a little too close. Take my word, or judge me - you're free to do either. Thanks for the words, but really, you told me nothing I don't already know and frankly it's a bit smug for my liking.

Reading this thread is interesting to me and not related to the OP. It illustrates all our biases. The usual players are out with their usual perspective and inability to see anyone's but theirs. No one will change the others mind. I suspect we all want safety for cyclists just have different ideas on how to get there.

The post above is all about not wanting to be judged then posts some dude in a dump truck working on some millionaires house. What does some millionaire have to do with any of this. Is someone deserving of vitriol just because they have been successful? There are a couple of guys that post regularly on here that always seem to find a way to get in subtle digs at anyone that has been successful or seems to have more resources than they do. I'll say the same thing I say to my children there will always be people with more than you and with less than you. If you judge people by their resources or stuff you'll be the one losing out.

Not calling you out velo just using your post as an example.

Be nice, be as safe as you can, enjoy people cause we are all more alike than different, enjoy your time here there is much to see and do and it's woefully short.

[fuzzalow]

Yea, I knew it was my fault and that I was being a prime donna. And, yea, you're right when the law says give 3 feet to a bike rider - there's nothing exact about it, cause who knows what 3 feet is - and you're right, it's 3 feet from the white line not the human being who is exposed and vuneralbe (of which I was to the right as per the pic - but you're forensic examination took that into account, I'm sure).

It is true, laws typically do imply and metrics stated in feet are vague.

I'll dry my tears off and get back on the saddle. Actually I have a ride today. Thanks, Fuzz - oh I'm 'implying' a lot in what I'm saying here, hopefully you're picking up what I'm laying down. . . .

I haven't any idea what you are saying here. My use of "imply" was in reference to the specific language of the 3-feet mandate versus how it is actually carried out in practice by the motorist general public.

I don't really care to try and decipher what you are saying here if you are not capable or desire to express yourself in a clear, non-sarcastic mode of discussion. This topic is a matter of fair importance to bicyclists and if you have a valid point of view you can express it so that others can benefit from your vantage point.

I gave a dispassionate assessment of what I saw the risk profile in that roadway picture to be. As a rider I am required to make this judgement in choosing and mapping my routes for any given ride for any given day and for every given time. So right there there are the variables of location, day & time that I will account for as to the riskiness of the roadway and the traffic density for when I wish to ride that road. Whether it is a go or no-go will depend on each individual rider's comfort in their own risk assessment of that piece of the route.

Now I will imply something about you based on what you have posted: You run an unacceptable risk to my judgment because you falsely view your rights on the roadway as what you expect as opposed to what you might actually get from motorists in actual practice. And that is you assume a greater skill set and awareness of you from a motorist that should offer you a wider margin of clearance than you will ever actually receive. And if you don't get this you will become exasperated - as you have expressed in the tone of your posts here.

Listen, we are all on the same side here. I am trading views and ideas with you. You can consider, or not, what you wish. But never forget we all want to enjoy cycling and we all share a common goal of staying safe and alive to do it. The reality of flesh and bone versus sheet metal impels a rider to work with what is real versus what is desired in a false utopian construct. That 3-feet clearance law is progress but it won't magically compel motorists to become receptive and respectful in the additional burden of sharing the road with a bicyclist.

Everybody, stay safe out there.

[velomonkey]

I gave a dispassionate assessment of what I saw

You can't use "crying" and Prima donna and claim it's dispassionate. Sorry, not the way it works - based on your defensiveness seems like you did pick up what I was laying down. Good. BTW, you inferred about me and then directly said that I was unsafe - you're using words to try and paint your discussion as golly gee, George. When really it's not that.

Stay safe, like you said - we're all on the same side here.

[velomonkey]

The post above is all about not wanting to be judged then posts some dude in a dump truck working on some millionaires house.

Not calling you out velo just using your post as an example.

Be nice, be as safe as you can, enjoy people cause we are all more alike than different, enjoy your time here there is much to see and do and it's woefully short.

If I post a picture, or anyone does - it is presumed it will get judged. I don't cry foul over that - what I said was you can't do some pseudo forensic examination of the truck distance and two abreast - it was shown as an example of someone using a dangerous vehicle to put a biker in their place - you can give the benefit of the doubt that myself and others used safety and best practices or you can try and judge something you have exceeding little evidence on and do so anonymously - be my guest.

Here is what I didn't do - I didn't flip off the driver - I didn't swear - I didn't stray from my line - I simply said with my buddy - "wow, that was uncalled for." Which it was - it was also dangerous. If people want to judge me off the picture - so be it, their loss, not mine.

[professerr]

Notwithstanding the debate above interpreting a single frame shot, my hope is that inevitable ubiquity of video cameras on both cars and bikes, together with a couple of high profile civil and/or criminal actions will go a long way towards making roads safer for cyclists. I don’t have a lot of confidence that driver/cyclist education and safety awareness programs are going to change drivers’ or cyclists’ behaviors much, but real fear of actually getting caught and punished will -- just go to any intersection where there’s a red light camera and you’ll see what I mean.

Jane and Joe Suburb won’t be to keen to have their wages attached for the next 10 years because they were texting, and most employees, say, driving trucks won’t risk losing their job over a video of them buzzing a cyclist that is emailed to their profit-minded employer in virtual real time. That latter I’ve done (sent a video, not buzzing), and I got a succinct email back that the employee had been terminated. There was no discussion that I should have been wearing a helmet, or riding to the right of the white line, or wearing bright colors, or I should take personal responsibility for putting myself at risk by riding a bike on the road.

I’m not sure I like the coming surveillance society, but there are some benefits.

[shovelhd]

I am not judging you velomonkey. If my level of risk is lower than yours that doesn't make me right and you wrong. If I came off that way I apologize.

[beeatnik]

Best and worst of Paceline...

[Drmojo]

but far too much squabbling
we all ride
most of us drive
we all value bicycle safety
I just believe all this passion and brainpower we have here is mis-directed:
If we started town meetings, helped victims more directly, spoke to law enforcement and legislators-- maybe even the auto and cycling industries
we could harness this energy to make the roads safer for everyone

since I just got struck by a car in broad daylight and broke my hip and ribs, this is more important than ever

[Louis]

Best and worst of Paceline...

So who's the Sydney Carton of the thread, and who's the Madame Defarge? ;)

[shovelhd]

but far too much squabbling
we all ride
most of us drive
we all value bicycle safety
I just believe all this passion and brainpower we have here is mis-directed:
If we started town meetings, helped victims more directly, spoke to law enforcement and legislators-- maybe even the auto and cycling industries
we could harness this energy to make the roads safer for everyone

since I just got struck by a car in broad daylight and broke my hip and ribs, this is more important than ever

Heal up Drmojo. I'm currently dealing with broken ribs myself, although it had nothing to do with a car.

[velomonkey]

I am not judging you velomonkey. If my level of risk is lower than yours that doesn't make me right and you wrong. If I came off that way I apologize.

Nah, we're cool, Shovel. Let me be the first to say: I get too hot headed - so I owe an apology, too. Sorry about that.

[Shortsocks]

"It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need any more defending from anybody"

Oh man. That's some funny stuff. I couldn't get past that. Very good article btw. Lots of truths to this Op-ed piece.

[Louis]

"It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need any more defending from anybody"

Oh man. That's some funny stuff. I couldn't get past that. Very good article btw. Lots of truths to this Op-ed piece.

EW has obviously not been following all of the current candidates vying for the office of POTUS, because according to many of them hetero white males are practically an endangered species.

[fuzzalow]

You can't use "crying" and Prima donna and claim it's dispassionate. Sorry, not the way it works - based on your defensiveness seems like you did pick up what I was laying down. Good. BTW, you inferred about me and then directly said that I was unsafe - you're using words to try and paint your discussion as golly gee, George. When really it's not that.

Stay safe, like you said - we're all on the same side here.

Give. No mas...no mas.

[JAllen]

but far too much squabbling
we all ride
most of us drive
we all value bicycle safety
I just believe all this passion and brainpower we have here is mis-directed:
If we started town meetings, helped victims more directly, spoke to law enforcement and legislators-- maybe even the auto and cycling industries
we could harness this energy to make the roads safer for everyone

since I just got struck by a car in broad daylight and broke my hip and ribs, this is more important than ever
hot damn! This has been a heated discussion. See what cars are doing to us?! In all seriousness though. There has been a lot of insight and I think we can all agree on what Drmojo has said. He is recovering from damages that only a motorized vehicle can deliver. Just like nuclear weaponry, the world won't ever be without cars. It can't be taken back, but what can be done is what he described: action.

[Shortsocks]

EW has obviously not been following all of the current candidates vying for the office of POTUS, because according to many of them hetero white males are practically an endangered species.

Also funny. :banana:

[velomonkey]

Also funny. :banana:

Short socks and Louis - i like your style. Humor always works and, more often than not, it's true.

Fuzz, you me and Ruby should sit down over a good bourbon - I'm thinking bulliet 10 year. Yum. We would solve peace in the middle east.

Shovel, just did a ride with Amos today, didn't get dropped. Hope you can join someday.

JAllen, DrMojo - thanks for summing it up - well done.

Just got done playing a game of manhunt in the backyard with my ten year old son and his friend who is sleeping over - it's what matters. I hope you all can do something similar.

Happy days and safe roads - thanks all!!!

[rugbysecondrow]

Mmmmm. I like scotch, but I love bourbon. Good call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fuzzalow]

Yeah cool...bourbon...uh, where you guys wanna go?

[velomonkey]

Yeah cool...bourbon...uh, where you guys wanna go?

You guys make the call - I can fit that bottle in my middle pocket. Pull is on me . . . .

[JAllen]

Drink one for me guys!

[e-RICHIE]

Well if you can make down to Watch Hill without getting killed,
The Olympia Tea Room has always been a favorite haunt atmo.

ps

arrange disorder

:cool:;):p
:cool::rolleyes:;)
:p;);)

[velomonkey]

Well if you can make down to Watch Hill without getting killed,
The Olympia Tea Room has always been a favorite haunt atmo.


And we made it two abreast - BOOM goes the mic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[paredown]

Interesting to read my way through this thread, since I'm a newb here.

It's probably a dead horse that needs no flogging--but I was particularly struck by BSNYC's comment that they will always mention the helmet, even if it would have done nothing to save the cyclist.

An old friend from my racing days--who never cottoned to modern helmets--was killed not long ago in Vancouver in the classic intersection accident where an oncoming driver turned left in front of him. With the combined speed, I doubt a helmet would have saved him--yet that was almost the lead of the article about the accident.

Someone wrote this in response to a radio program that discussed the accident:

...I must take issue with one aspect of your interview with Bryan Rose. By turning as much attention as you did to Mr. Sumner's lack of a helmet at the time of his collision, you seem to be implying that he was at fault for his own death.

While helmets can greatly improve your chances of surviving a crash, they are designed to protect against the consequences of falls at relatively low speeds, not collisions with automobiles. A helmet may have saved Mr. Sumner's life, or it may not.

One thing's for sure, if he hadn't been in the collision, he wouldn't have died.

More cyclists are killed and seriously injured by left turning motorists than by any other type of accident. Drivers need to be aware of cyclists on the road, and they need to understand that cyclists can - and often do - travel at the same speed as other traffic. Whether or not the cyclist had been wearing a helmet at the time of the collision is not the issue.

And AFAIK, no charges were filed against the driver--it was a motorist "oops" and therefore allowable.

There is something wrong with the public discourse about accidents and responsibility, and I think that too often motorists who do owe 'the highest duty of care' as the party who have the greatest potential to kill or maim are given a pass, and too often there is the subtle blame-shifting that somehow we (the cyclists) are somehow complicit in accidents where the fault lies solely with the motorist.

[malcolm]

Short socks and Louis - i like your style. Humor always works and, more often than not, it's true.

Fuzz, you me and Ruby should sit down over a good bourbon - I'm thinking bulliet 10 year. Yum. We would solve peace in the middle east.

Shovel, just did a ride with Amos today, didn't get dropped. Hope you can join someday.

JAllen, DrMojo - thanks for summing it up - well done.

Just got done playing a game of manhunt in the backyard with my ten year old son and his friend who is sleeping over - it's what matters. I hope you all can do something similar.

Happy days and safe roads - thanks all!!!

Move it to Colorado and make it Blanton and would have to beg for an invite.

[fuzzalow]

You guys make the call - I can fit that bottle in my middle pocket. Pull is on me . . . .
OK, the better bourbon saloons I know about are in Brooklyn, so we're gonna hafta schlep on over to the Willy Bee. There are places with so many different bourbons on offer you could try a shot from each running down the menu and be on the floor before you can get to the bottom of the menu. That could be fun.

but far too much squabbling

I disagree, the discourse just appears to take on the form & substance of a squabble. Beneath that vortex exterior that may appear to all as chaos lies the the true foundation of deep thought which is largely comprised of chaos and nothingness.

hot damn! This has been a heated discussion.

This forum and some of its members can certainly come off as either strange and wonderous or as completely nuts. These discussions look and sound like folks go at it tooth and nail. Dogs versus cats. Democrats versus Republicans. Hatfields versus McCoys. Union versus Confederate. Sunni versus Shia.

And when it's all over, no hard feelings or grudges, see you at the next argument! Like the Monty Python skit on the Argument Clinic. It's not an act in the sense of it as being contrived BS on the web in the form of inflammatory tripe as a tactic of the attention whore, folks are really telling you what they think. Both nuts and fun at the same time.

[JAllen]

This forum and some of its members can certainly come off as either strange and wonderous or as completely nuts. These discussions look and sound like folks go at it tooth and nail. Dogs versus cats. Democrats versus Republicans. Hatfields versus McCoys. Union versus Confederate. Sunni versus Shia.

And when it's all over, no hard feelings or grudges, see you at the next argument! Like the Monty Python skit on the Argument Clinic. It's not an act in the sense of it as being contrived BS on the web in the form of inflammatory tripe as a tactic of the attention whore, folks are really telling you what they think. Both nuts and fun at the same time.

Fuzz, I totally get it and it reminds me partly why I love this place so much. I'll also say that some of these discussions are so entertaining too! I just want to grab some beer and popcorn and pull up a chair. :)

[A1CKot]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/19/bicycles-vs-cars-battle-for-roads/

Posted on Autoblog about the op-ed. Not much in the article but the comments were kind of surprising.

[JAllen]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/19/bicycles-vs-cars-battle-for-roads/

Posted on Autoblog about the op-ed. Not much in the article but the comments were kind of surprising.

The comments I read (I didn't read too many) were very civil! I was quite surprised. Usually any sort of civility goes out the window on that subject.

[BobO]

Get his license and call the cops..He won't get a ticket but he will be talked to. Or follow him if you can, stop by him when he parks, call the cops.

Emphasis mine.

That's funny, I would be amazed if the cops here put any energy at all into tracking someone down for that. If it doesn't make revenue for the town, they ain't interested. ;) Now, if I had video of it happening I might have something.

My point was this, even here in one of America's bike friendliest communities, there are people who will go out of their way to mess with cyclists and send a message to get off their road.

[malcolm]

Emphasis mine.

That's funny, I would be amazed if the cops here put any energy at all into tracking someone down for that. If it doesn't make revenue for the town, they ain't interested. ;) Now, if I had video of it happening I might have something.

My point was this, even here in one of America's bike friendliest communities, there are people who will go out of their way to mess with cyclists and send a message to get off their road.

If you are referring to the debate here that isn't my take at all.

We all have different levels of risk that we tolerate and I know mine have changed with age.

I think the discussion highlights different thoughts on how to achieve safety for the cyclists. The ideas on how to achieve harmony between the automobile and cycling community may be 180 degrees apart but the end point is the same.

I think rugby was one of the more vocal about assigning responsibility and not to speak for him but I don't think he would ever advocate keep you off the streets or limiting access only improved safety.

[BobO]

If you are referring to the debate here that isn't my take at all.

Not what I was referring to, it was that Oldpotato stated that he hadn't been "brushed back" by a driver in a long time (paraphrasing). I showed an example of how, in contrast, it is relatively common where I am. For cyclists in the Tucson area there are many stories of militant drivers who want bikes off the road altogether. (Generally a redneck)

I agree that there are different valid opinions on how to achieve safety, but I also feel that the solutions will revolve around local conditions. Where Oldpotato is, clearly the militant driver isn't as big a problem as it is here so different approaches are appropriate.

[malcolm]

I hear you.

The spud lives in the republic of boulder, very bike friendly.

I live in the southeast and although I seldom ride the road bike anymore I had brush backs on a regular basis.

While this certainly demonstrates a lack of concern and disdain for cyclists I don't think these guys are the ones routinely killing and maiming cyclists. It's the distracted drivers.

Places like boulder are more used to seeing cyclists and most everyone there probably has friends that are cyclists. That makes the cyclist seem more human and less like a nuisance or obstacle. For most reasonable people once they accept you as a mother, father, son or daughter they are more forgiving or accommodating.

[Gummee]

I'm not quite sure what I read when I just read this (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/04/17/tr-boy-charged-attempted-murders-bicyclists/25935697/)

M

[JAllen]

I'm not quite sure what I read when I just read this (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/04/17/tr-boy-charged-attempted-murders-bicyclists/25935697/)

M
This was an interesting article. Thank you, Gummee, for posting. I'm glad to see that this threat was taken seriously.