When to honk at a bicyclist

"Tom Keats" wrote

To be fair, I should mention that I draw a distinction between
being courteous (going above & beyond what's required to keep
the traffic flowing), and not being discourteous (just smoothly
going with the flow).

Ok. I'm thinking of traffic courtesies as simple, passive ones (not
taking the lane just to chat with ol' Bob for the entire ride....)

I get to see lots of fellow riders every day, and I rarely see
any deliberate discourtesy on their parts.

[snip]

Cyclists simply can't afford
to be deliberately discourteous, and I think complaints about
discourteous cyclists are generally overblown.

Again, I don't think a cyclist's motivation (malevolence,
carelessness, dementia) necessarily enters a motorist's mind. What
matters is the effect of the cyclist's actions on that motorist:
having to swerve, delaying their travel, necessitating a delayed and
dangerous pass on a double-yellow stretch, etc., etc.

The post that spawned this whole subthread describes how 4
riders (briefly?) hogged 2 lanes of road until the leftmost 2
relinquished the passing lane. Okay, maybe that /was/
discourteous. Or maybe they just assumed there wasn't any
other traffic around and were startled when they discovered there
was a car coming up behind them. I suppose the case could be
made that inattentiveness is discourtesy.

BINGO!

At any rate, the
poster/driver was able to pass them, and planet earth is still
rotating on its axis as per usual.

And therein lies yet another discourtesy. When did we become a
protected class? When did we decide that we wanted the same rights,
but were not bound by the same responsibilities? Put another way,
when cyclists are riding two abreast, slowing traffic, and the 22yr
old passenger blasts a marine air horn at the cyclists at point blank
range . . . the planet still rotates on its axis per usual, as well.

As for courtesy: sure, courtesy is fine when road/street users
can be individuals not affecting other traffic. But in the
long run I figure there are no individuals in traffic (except
emergency response vehicles en-route to calls.) So my approach
is to do what I can & should to keep the whole traffic (including
myself) flowing, rather than cherry-picking individuals on whom
to bestow random acts of kindness.

I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this
context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have
been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the
least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as
quickly as possible. IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an
awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel
guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road
with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways
off.

neil0502 wrote:


I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this
context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have
been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the
least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as
quickly as possible.

Bicyclists do not and should not have to worry about causing overtaking
motorists to have to slow down, whether there is a "need" to
purposefully do so or not. And there is no need to be aware of
approaching motor vehicles. All the bicyclist must do is be predictable
and hold a consistent line. In other words, one can be deaf and still
drive a bike, as one can be deaf and drive a motor vehicle. The burden
of overtaking is on the overtaker.

IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an
awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel
guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road
with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways
off.



I'm OK with "sharing the road." But a cyclist "sharing the road" is
letting a motorist into the cyclist's space. A motorist "sharing the
road" is what, being courteous to the bicylist when using the
bicyclist's space?

Wayne

In article ,
"neil0502" writes:
"Tom Keats" wrote

To be fair, I should mention that I draw a distinction between
being courteous (going above & beyond what's required to keep
the traffic flowing), and not being discourteous (just smoothly
going with the flow).

Ok. I'm thinking of traffic courtesies as simple, passive ones (not
taking the lane just to chat with ol' Bob for the entire ride....)

Yeah, terminology can sometimes get tricky, what with connotation
and all. Maybe 'cooperation' is a better word than 'courtesy' to
describe getting along in and with traffic? Speaking of which, I
can attest that Zoot is as cooperative in traffic as anyone --
contrary to some of the conclusions that have been jumped-to by
others in this discussion.

I get to see lots of fellow riders every day, and I rarely see
any deliberate discourtesy on their parts.

[snip]

Cyclists simply can't afford
to be deliberately discourteous, and I think complaints about
discourteous cyclists are generally overblown.

Again, I don't think a cyclist's motivation (malevolence,
carelessness, dementia) necessarily enters a motorist's mind. What
matters is the effect of the cyclist's actions on that motorist:
having to swerve, delaying their travel,

Motorists do that to each other as a matter of course; i.e: waiting
for opposing traffic, to make a lawful left turn off an arterial
onto a side street. When a driver does it, it's no big deal. But
when a cyclist does it, [s]he's somehow being an intolerable obstacle.

necessitating a delayed and
dangerous pass on a double-yellow stretch, etc., etc.

That's a /choice/ the driver makes. If a cyclist is taking
the lane in such circumstances, more likely than not it's for
valid reasons of personal safety, and the cyclist would prefer
not having to do so in the first place, and would want to get
it over with and back to lane sharing or onto good shoulder
pavement ASAP. I don't know of any riders who actually enjoy
having irate drivers on their 6.

[snip]

I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this
context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have
been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the
least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as
quickly as possible.

Yeah, I too would have to say the riders in this case screwed up.
Four abreast across two lanes is ... flagrant. But it's perhaps
understandable if not excusable, if there was only one car on
the road at the time.

IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an
awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel
guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road
with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways
off.

Well, I guess we agree there. I'll just submit that I think
most surviving cyclists by dint of our vulnerability have more
of that road-sharing awareness than drivers. And too many
drivers just don't know how to deal with bicycles. Heck, a lot
of 'em don't even seem to understand that steep hills slow us
down.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Wayne Pein" wrote

neil0502 wrote:

I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this
context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to
have
been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at
the
least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move
over as
quickly as possible.

Bicyclists do not and should not have to worry about causing
overtaking
motorists to have to slow down, whether there is a "need" to
purposefully do so or not. And there is no need to be aware of
approaching motor vehicles. All the bicyclist must do is be
predictable
and hold a consistent line. In other words, one can be deaf and
still
drive a bike, as one can be deaf and drive a motor vehicle. The
burden
of overtaking is on the overtaker.

I'm confused, Wayne. Are you saying that--on a road with a clean,
clear, designated bike lane, cyclists should not hesitate to ride in
the vehicular traffic lane if they choose to, rather than stay within
the designated bike lane? If so, are you further saying that those
bicyclists in the traffic lane have no obligation to return to the
bike lane, or to be aware of approaching cars behind them, but rather
should only hold their course (and speed)?

If so . . . then best of luck to you and those who agree with that
position. That will never be my approach. Also, at least here in
California, what (I think) you're advocating is against the law (see
section 21202 in: http://snipurl.com/9xiu).

(Also, the burden is on the deaf motorist/cyclist to be vigilant in
checking their mirrors, or otherwise being aware of their
surroundings.)

IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an
awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil
fuel
guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the
road
with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a
ways
off.

I'm OK with "sharing the road." But a cyclist "sharing the road" is
letting a motorist into the cyclist's space. A motorist "sharing the
road" is what, being courteous to the bicylist when using the
bicyclist's space?

Your definitions, not mine. Sharing the road is common sense, common
courtesy, and--I would say--not taking the lane /without reason/ for
one's own convenience, especially when one's stated belief is that one
is not obligated to be aware of motorists who may be affected by such
actions.

Sorry . . . it's /raining buckets/ in San Diego . . . and a thread
like this could amuse me for hours ;-)

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:45:03 GMT,
,
"neil0502" wrote:


What
matters is the effect of the cyclist's actions on that motorist:
having to swerve, delaying their travel, necessitating a delayed and
dangerous pass on a double-yellow stretch, etc., etc.

Fukem.
They'll not cop an attitude about flat-bed trucks spilling their load
and halting traffic 3 hours while it's cleared. Or, they'll sit
waiting patiently while another incompetent struggles berthing its
scud. But they'll snivel or threaten cyclists for a twenty second
delay.
Cagers are scum.
--
zk

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:24:25 GMT,
,
"neil0502" concluded:

He might have been primed and ready _anyway_, but somebody else set
him off . . . and we had to pay for it.

I'm sure, he'd met jerks on bikes before and you're likely to meet
more jerks on horses too.
You met a whackadoo. Luck of the draw.

Again, _no_ downside to operating (horses, bikes, and cars)
courteously.

On the streets, I extend what courtesies I get, and as a rule, always
give idiots the benefit of doubt.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
19 Oct 2004 13:32:34 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:

Wrong answer. I don't ride with any fear of the sort. If I did, show
me where.
I also never claimed anyone would be assualting anybody with a car,
that was something you dreamed up do to your being unable to control
your anger at cagers. It could be a bottle thrown, spit upon or any
number of things. Point is a$$hole cyclists make it bad for all.
Period.

No, flat-fizzed. Cagers learn their crappy attitudes from other
cagers, not from cyclists.

They learn their crappy attutudes towards cyclists from cyclists.

I don't have to filter forward for you to catch a beer bottle. The
****flake who threw it doesn't need an excuse. Its a ****flake.

Keep believing that. When I listen to a driver spout about
some cyclists he encountered earlier, I know otherwise.


We could all be sweet and pleasant and the caged scum would still
assault us merely because they can. The small chance of their being
caught or their crime (assault) being taken seriously by a prejudicial
car-centric society are more plausible factors determining their
actions than whether they've a particular hard-on against cyclists.

You cannot even form a sentence without resorting to something
like "caged scum". You behave just like them and continue to
prove my point. Keep up the good work.

We're targets simply because they're ****flakes.
Always have been and always will be.

What I notice most frequently that could remotely be associated to
fallout from scofflaw cycling, is that some drivers are more cautious
around cyclists at intersections not knowing whether or not we'll stop
for the sign.

And the time you run one and get hit you'll say it was
their fault!


You don't know how I ride, so STFU.

That's funny coming from a guy who accused me of being "ready to
excuse murderous drivers assaulting cyclists" along with my
"deplorable
habits". You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even
own a car. HYPOCRITE.

Zoot Katz wrote in message ...
19 Oct 2004 13:36:06 -0700,
,
(R.White) wrote:


You know it as well as I do and you know they
feel that way because of the actions of a few. Those few affect
most of us eventually.

I'm insisting that you prove to me how you're directly affected.
Otherwise, you're making up boogie man stories.

And I'll insist that you prove your selfish, unsafe actions never
caused a cager to show ill feeling and actions towards another
cyclist.

With all due respect, **** OFF, loon.

Waaaa! Just what I expected your answer would be.

It was your premise that you're getting static for what I do.
I say you're FOS with your boogie man myth.

Yeah, It was a myth until Neil told of his encounter with the horse
riders. Now what's your excuse?

Why can't you accept that caged scum will always be scum regardless of
how you or I ride?

I will when you accept that being a scofflaw affects others.

So, take responsiblity for your own actions and quit looking for a
scapegoat, whiner.

Scofflaw.

20 Oct 2004 12:08:39 -0700,
,
apologist butt-kisser (R.White) wrote:

You don't know what I drive, when I drive, or if I even
own a car. HYPOCRITE.

You're in love with your ****-box Ford. Go suck its tailpipe.
--
zk

In article ,
Zoot Katz writes:
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:24:25 GMT,
,
"neil0502" concluded:

He might have been primed and ready _anyway_, but somebody else set
him off . . . and we had to pay for it.

I'm sure, he'd met jerks on bikes before and you're likely to meet
more jerks on horses too.
You met a whackadoo. Luck of the draw.

The angry horsie guy reminded me of the comix character:
Reid Fleming, Toughest Milkman in the World.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca