Before & after bike ghettos

On Oct 4, 10:19*am, Peter Cole wrote:

snip snip snip

If the laws were indeed different for bikes, so that it was mandated
from on high (so to speak) that MV's had to stop, while bikes could
cruise, or WTH, ignore stop signs, then fine. There's good reason the
laws are not written that way. Should MV's have to stop and wait for
cyclists approaching intersections so they can cruise on through
without slowing down because it's so hard for the poor cyclists to
slow down, let alone stop and get up to speed again? Get real. Not
even in Amsterdam, where cyclists are (mostly) the top of the food
chain, do bikes not have to stop at marked or lit intersections.

One aspect of aggression by MV operators is, many don't know how wide
and long their vehicles are. An intended near miss is pretty chancy.
I've been lucky so far, but I know others who haven't. IOW, the
collision might not have been intentional, but the aggression
certainly was. Including knowing, deep down, that as a motorist, you
can hit a cyclist and cop a plea.

Further, aggression by MV operators towards cyclists deters many
potential riders. My daughter is on that list, after being "brushed
back" by a jerk who didn't want her crossing the road to enter her
middle school driveway, even though she said and I well believe, there
was plenty of room.

Maybe being buzzed gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Not me.

I'm a "get along" kinda guy, not a "whatever you do don't **** them
off" kinda guy. Partly because I fully recognize, by long experience,
that some of them are already ****ed off and cyclists are handy
targets. When I turn my head to indicate I hear a motorist approaching
from behind, and have no intention of suddenly veering into his path,
I am not being a cowardly suck-ass, to put it in plain English. The
rest of my "signaling intent" follows in similar manner. It's having a
basic respect for others, sharing the road. The assholes get different
signals, in general. PIck your fights carefully, as they always say.
--D-y

wrote in message ...
On Oct 4, 10:19 am, Peter Cole wrote:

snip snip snip

If the laws were indeed different for bikes, so that it was mandated
from on high (so to speak) that MV's had to stop, while bikes could
cruise, or WTH, ignore stop signs, then fine. There's good reason the
laws are not written that way. Should MV's have to stop and wait for
cyclists approaching intersections so they can cruise on through
without slowing down because it's so hard for the poor cyclists to
slow down, let alone stop and get up to speed again? Get real. Not
even in Amsterdam, where cyclists are (mostly) the top of the food
chain, do bikes not have to stop at marked or lit intersections.

The problem in some cases is that MV drivers don't think or maybe
it's that they don't know that bikes have a right to be on the road.
It's like they think that our presence is interfering with them. I was at
a light yesterday. The right lane was right only. The center lane was
straight or right and the left lane was straight only. I was in the center
going straight. An MV pulled up behind me and when the right arrow
lit, he started blowing his horn. I thought I'd be nice and moved to the
right side of the lane to let him go around. We were the only two
at the stop. He wanted me to move to the sidewalk. I told him he was in
the wrong lane and he told me that I was in the road.

This happened about 10 minutes after I was fighting with an 18 wheeler who
was tailgaiting me over an overpass so I sort of lost it and told him to go
f*ck himself.

I would say that most of the people that I encounter in cars are pretty cool
about bikes but it's the few lunatics that are dangerous (like the driver of
the 18 wheeler). But what really bugged me about the guy at the stop,
is that he didn't look like a lunatic. He was actually complaining to me
because he thought that I was wrong.

Anyway, my point is that I'm not sure that it matters what the laws are
since most people don't seem to know them to begin with.

On 10/6/2010 10:13 AM, wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:19 am, Peter wrote:

snip snip snip

If the laws were indeed different for bikes, so that it was mandated
from on high (so to speak) that MV's had to stop, while bikes could
cruise, or WTH, ignore stop signs, then fine. There's good reason the
laws are not written that way. Should MV's have to stop and wait for
cyclists approaching intersections so they can cruise on through
without slowing down because it's so hard for the poor cyclists to
slow down, let alone stop and get up to speed again? Get real. Not
even in Amsterdam, where cyclists are (mostly) the top of the food
chain, do bikes not have to stop at marked or lit intersections.

One aspect of aggression by MV operators is, many don't know how wide
and long their vehicles are. An intended near miss is pretty chancy.
I've been lucky so far, but I know others who haven't. IOW, the
collision might not have been intentional, but the aggression
certainly was. Including knowing, deep down, that as a motorist, you
can hit a cyclist and cop a plea.

Further, aggression by MV operators towards cyclists deters many
potential riders. My daughter is on that list, after being "brushed
back" by a jerk who didn't want her crossing the road to enter her
middle school driveway, even though she said and I well believe, there
was plenty of room.

Maybe being buzzed gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Not me.

I'm a "get along" kinda guy, not a "whatever you do don't **** them
off" kinda guy. Partly because I fully recognize, by long experience,
that some of them are already ****ed off and cyclists are handy
targets. When I turn my head to indicate I hear a motorist approaching
from behind, and have no intention of suddenly veering into his path,
I am not being a cowardly suck-ass, to put it in plain English. The
rest of my "signaling intent" follows in similar manner. It's having a
basic respect for others, sharing the road. The assholes get different
signals, in general. PIck your fights carefully, as they always say.
--D-y

I think you over-snipped to the point I'm having trouble putting your
response in context. Not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing, or to
what. Sorry.

On Oct 6, 10:53*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

I would say that most of the people that I encounter in cars are pretty cool
about bikes but it's the few lunatics that are dangerous (like the driver of
the 18 wheeler). * But what really bugged me about the guy at the stop,
is that he didn't look like a lunatic. *He was actually complaining to me
because he thought that I was wrong.

Anyway, my point is that I'm not sure that it matters what the laws are
since most people don't seem to know them to begin with.

Education is the usual solution to ignorance.

But how much do we hear about the need for such education - that is,
teaching motorists the rules of the road regarding bicycles? Or
teaching the cops the rules? Or teaching bicyclists those same
rules? Precious little, in my experience.

Cycling advocacy organizations should be starting there, I believe -
or perhaps starting with getting laws improved, while also educating
people as to what the laws are. This education should be happening
via the various media - television, radio, internet, magazines,
newspapers, driver's test study guides, billboards, signage, etc. And
BTW, once the cops were properly educated, there would be a better
chance they'd ticket (and thus educate) the few lunatics.

Instead I see too many cycling advocates whining that "It's too
dangerous! We need bike lanes!"

It's magical thinking.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Oct 6, 10:53 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

I would say that most of the people that I encounter in cars are pretty cool
about bikes but it's the few lunatics that are dangerous (like the driver of
the 18 wheeler). But what really bugged me about the guy at the stop,
is that he didn't look like a lunatic. He was actually complaining to me
because he thought that I was wrong.

Anyway, my point is that I'm not sure that it matters what the laws are
since most people don't seem to know them to begin with.

Education is the usual solution to ignorance.

But how much do we hear about the need for such education - that is,
teaching motorists the rules of the road regarding bicycles? Or
teaching the cops the rules? Or teaching bicyclists those same
rules? Precious little, in my experience.

Cycling advocacy organizations should be starting there, I believe -
or perhaps starting with getting laws improved, while also educating
people as to what the laws are. This education should be happening
via the various media - television, radio, internet, magazines,
newspapers, driver's test study guides, billboards, signage, etc. And
BTW, once the cops were properly educated, there would be a better
chance they'd ticket (and thus educate) the few lunatics.

Velo Quebec is pretty active in both education and advocacy as well as technical design with
respect to cycling infrastructure. The city of Montreal uses them.

http://www.velo.qc.ca/english/index.php?page=whoarewe
http://www.velo.qc.ca/english/bikewaysdesign.php


Instead I see too many cycling advocates whining that "It's too
dangerous! We need bike lanes!"

If you didn't use words like "whining" to describe people that don't
share your view, you might have less problems with people here.

wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:19 am, Peter Cole wrote:

snip snip snip

If the laws were indeed different for bikes, so that it was mandated
from on high (so to speak) that MV's had to stop, while bikes could
cruise, or WTH, ignore stop signs, then fine. There's good reason the
laws are not written that way. Should MV's have to stop and wait for
cyclists approaching intersections so they can cruise on through
without slowing down because it's so hard for the poor cyclists to
slow down, let alone stop and get up to speed again? Get real. Not
even in Amsterdam, where cyclists are (mostly) the top of the food
chain, do bikes not have to stop at marked or lit intersections.

One aspect of aggression by MV operators is, many don't know how wide
and long their vehicles are. An intended near miss is pretty chancy.
I've been lucky so far, but I know others who haven't. IOW, the
collision might not have been intentional, but the aggression
certainly was. Including knowing, deep down, that as a motorist, you
can hit a cyclist and cop a plea.

Further, aggression by MV operators towards cyclists deters many
potential riders. My daughter is on that list, after being "brushed
back" by a jerk who didn't want her crossing the road to enter her
middle school driveway, even though she said and I well believe, there
was plenty of room.

Maybe being buzzed gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Not me.

I'm a "get along" kinda guy, not a "whatever you do don't **** them
off" kinda guy. Partly because I fully recognize, by long experience,
that some of them are already ****ed off and cyclists are handy
targets. When I turn my head to indicate I hear a motorist approaching
from behind, and have no intention of suddenly veering into his path,
I am not being a cowardly suck-ass, to put it in plain English. The
rest of my "signaling intent" follows in similar manner. It's having a
basic respect for others, sharing the road. The assholes get different
signals, in general. PIck your fights carefully, as they always say.
--D-y


If "I didn't see him" won't fly, try "sun was in my eyes" :
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/104376538.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/6/2010 6:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
wrote:

I'm a "get along" kinda guy, not a "whatever you do don't **** them
off" kinda guy. Partly because I fully recognize, by long experience,
that some of them are already ****ed off and cyclists are handy
targets. When I turn my head to indicate I hear a motorist approaching
from behind, and have no intention of suddenly veering into his path,
I am not being a cowardly suck-ass, to put it in plain English. The
rest of my "signaling intent" follows in similar manner. It's having a
basic respect for others, sharing the road. The assholes get different
signals, in general. PIck your fights carefully, as they always say.
--D-y


If "I didn't see him" won't fly, try "sun was in my eyes" :
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/104376538.html

One of the issues I have about the "same roads, same rules" mantra is
that it implicitly supports the same liability principles that have
evolved to serve an auto-centric system. I'm not sure that we, as
cyclists, want that absolute equality.

In rec.bicycles.tech Peter Cole wrote:
:On 10/6/2010 6:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
: wrote:

: I'm a "get along" kinda guy, not a "whatever you do don't **** them
: off" kinda guy. Partly because I fully recognize, by long experience,
: that some of them are already ****ed off and cyclists are handy
: targets. When I turn my head to indicate I hear a motorist approaching
: from behind, and have no intention of suddenly veering into his path,
: I am not being a cowardly suck-ass, to put it in plain English. The
: rest of my "signaling intent" follows in similar manner. It's having a
: basic respect for others, sharing the road. The assholes get different
: signals, in general. PIck your fights carefully, as they always say.
: --D-y
:
:
: If "I didn't see him" won't fly, try "sun was in my eyes" :
: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/104376538.html

:One of the issues I have about the "same roads, same rules" mantra is
:that it implicitly supports the same liability principles that have
:evolved to serve an auto-centric system. I'm not sure that we, as
:cyclists, want that absolute equality.

I've got insurance to cover wrecking cars. Most of the people reading
this do.

--
sig 74

On 10/7/2010 10:13 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Peter wrote:
:On 10/6/2010 6:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:

: If "I didn't see him" won't fly, try "sun was in my eyes" :
: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/104376538.html

:One of the issues I have about the "same roads, same rules" mantra is
:that it implicitly supports the same liability principles that have
:evolved to serve an auto-centric system. I'm not sure that we, as
:cyclists, want that absolute equality.

I've got insurance to cover wrecking cars. Most of the people reading
this do.


I was thinking more of criminal liability, rather than financial.