Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Nate Nagel wrote:

> I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding traffic
> but it hasn't happened yet.

Why? As a cyclist, you have a right to use the road, while as a motorist
you have a conditionally granted privilege. Bicycle riders don't require
licenses, registrations or insurance. You are operating under an
inferiority complex and compensating for it with overly deferential
behavior. That's fine, if you want to go that way, but it's only your
personal trip -- it certainly has nothing to do with reality.

In article <3alo93p28km80brlodqpfiisrdkmls3ioi@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
>>>> I find gutter passing bad form wether I'm biking or driving.
>>>>
>>> Just pass the whole line on the left -- much faster, usually safer.
>>
>>When legal, I do.
>
> I regularly pass long lines of stopped cars on their right. Since I am
> in a separate lane (i.e. the bike lane), it's not a "gutter pass" nor
> is it illegal. Yet another big advantage of a bike lane over a wide
> curb lane.

The bicycle lane often is the gutter. And IL law only specifies a minimum
pavement width to the right to make a right side pass, not a marked lane.
Thanks for playing.

In article <mKCdnY-WK4DjKAHbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding traffic
>> but it hasn't happened yet.
>
> Why? As a cyclist, you have a right to use the road, while as a motorist
> you have a conditionally granted privilege.

1) He was talking about driving the underposted speed limit. Speed limits
are so poorly set that driving them is impeding traffic. I294 has a large
photo enforcement work zone presently. I sit in the right lane at 45mph.
Usually I have a semi truck 3-6 feet behind me. Last sunday it was series
of 4 wheelers. One particular minivan driving was laying on the horn 3
feet off my rear bumper.

2) I've been hassled by cops while riding vehicularly. Many cops think
that bicycles must be ridden in a cowering and submissive manner. I don't
ride that way and that bothers cops.

3) driving as privilege... that's what government tells you in order to
attach all manner of things to driving. The reality is quite different.
Driving is no less or more than bicycling, only more regulated to keep
people from tripping over each other and causing harm to each other.
Driving is also specifically taxed because of the higher infastructure
costs. But it is not a privilege granted by government, for once you have
government granting privileges, especially for such basic things, we are
no longer free.

In article <QOCdnU9dKOjGMQHbnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> Riding a bicycle is not the same, under the law, as driving a car, which
> is not the same as driving a truck, which is not the same as driving a
> gasoline tanker, etc., etc. Even the ROW rules are similar, not identical.

I suggest you re-read the laws of your state. In most, if not all states
riding a bicycle is the same except for a few differences. IL law is
written that way, as is the law of other states that I have read.

In article <9-idnZmZrOH4MwHbnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <YvydnQB5ZbTAfwbbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't like gutter passers and other sorts of illegal lane usage so I
>>>> don't do them.
>>
>>> It's not illegal here (MA). Are you sure it's illegal where you are?

>> Lane splitting certainly, gutter passing only when there is considerably
>> more space than that typically present.

> Your state has a space limit for right hand passing on a bicycle? What
> is it? What's the state?

IL. The law doesn't specify a vehicle type, only the minimum space.

>>> The third time I make NO effort to give
>>>> them space.

>>> That sounds pretty menacing.

>> Oh they still have more space than they had when they gutter passed me.
>> If they aren't going to behave as a vehicle, I see no reason to treat
>> them as one.

> That sounds sanctimonious and menacing.

You sound like the sort of asshole who decides he can be rude to everyone
else, but everyone else is still required to be polite to him. Here's an
idea, get in the queue like everyone else. If you can pass me again fair
and square by using a full traffic lane, you'll get a full lane when and
if I pass you again. If you are going to gutter pass me, you'll get the
minimum care not to hit you and no more. I find it uncomfortable to be
gutter passed and annoying to need to repass you because of your rude
behavior. thusly I will not go out of my way to make things comfortable
to you. Perhaps then you'll learn not to be rude.

>>> In stop & go traffic, it's pretty hit or
>>> miss whether or not the cars you pass ever pass you again, sometimes you
>>> repeatedly pass each other, sometimes not. Even if you do repeatedly
>>> pass, why should the motorist be entitled to irritation? It makes as
>>> much sense for me to be irritated about having to filter forward again.

>> I've passed the same bicyclist upwards of four times in normal city
>> traffic because they gutter pass to the front of the queue.

> So what?

So what? Do you not grasp how annoying it is to find gaps in the other
lane to give some gutter passing asshole a full lane FOUR times? You'll
get treated the way you act. Since you are acting as a gutter passing POB
you'll be treated as such. Act like as a vehicle and you'll be treated
that way.

>>> Right, and I see no more reason to be less irritated by a car in my way
>>> than a bike.

>> That's why they get a full lane when I pass. But if they decide not to
>> play nice and gutter pass, well then I'll treat them accordingly.

> You're just making up your own set of private rules and being petty.

No I'm not making up my own rules. You gutter passers make up your own
rules. I ride by the rules and don't gutter pass. You gutter pass me, I
am going to assume you are perfectly comfortable with that amount of space.

>>> In urban scenes I can usually flow through traffic much
>>> faster than the traffic is moving. I see no reason to park myself behind
>>> a tailpipe.

>> Funny. When I am driving or riding I am faster than the gutter passers.
>> If we take the same route I will always end up repassing them.

> In what circumstances? Downtown? What kind of city? Synchronized lights?
> I wouldn't bother continuously repassing a line of traffic only to swap
> positions over and over, but that's something that happens very rarely
> in my experience and is very dependent on precise conditions which are,
> for all intents, impossible to predict.

My favorite story is of the bicycle cop I encountered in downtown
chicago. We were riding south out of the loop. I passed him mid-block. I
caught a red. He ran it. I passed him mid block, caught a red, he ran it.
rinse and repeat a few times. I kept repassing him until he turned
(running yet another red) and was no longer following my route. Funny
thing was, one of the lights the bike cop ran, when it turned green I was
nearly hit by a police van that ran the red.....

Brent P wrote:
> In article <QOCdnU9dKOjGMQHbnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Riding a bicycle is not the same, under the law, as driving a car, which
>> is not the same as driving a truck, which is not the same as driving a
>> gasoline tanker, etc., etc. Even the ROW rules are similar, not identical.
>
> I suggest you re-read the laws of your state. In most, if not all states
> riding a bicycle is the same except for a few differences. IL law is
> written that way, as is the law of other states that I have read.
>
>

What you say applies to the right of way rules, their are mountains of
other laws that don't apply to non-motorized vehicles. Even if the ROW
rules are similar, the penalties are usually much different, reflecting
the obvious (to some) difference in liability.

Brent P wrote:

> IL. The law doesn't specify a vehicle type, only the minimum space.


(625 ILCS 5/11‑704) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑704)
Sec. 11‑704. When overtaking on the right is permitted. (a) The
driver of a vehicle with 3 or more wheels may overtake and pass upon the
right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width
for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being
traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
.....
(b) The driver of a 2 wheeled vehicle may not pass upon the right
of any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the
unobstructed pavement to the right of the vehicle being passed is of a
width of not less than 8 feet.

Truly bizarre law. For cars, all they have to do is fit past each other,
while a bicycle requires at least 8'.

Very different in your state. No wonder nobody obeys that law.

>
>>>> The third time I make NO effort to give
>>>>> them space.
>
>>>> That sounds pretty menacing.
>
>>> Oh they still have more space than they had when they gutter passed me.
>>> If they aren't going to behave as a vehicle, I see no reason to treat
>>> them as one.

Well you're going to have to stop your evil ways. According to what I
read IL is about to implement a 3' minimum on passing bikes.


>> That sounds sanctimonious and menacing.
>
> You sound like the sort of asshole who decides he can be rude to everyone
> else,

Where I come from, calling names is rude, disagreement isn't.


>> So what?
>
> So what? Do you not grasp how annoying it is to find gaps in the other
> lane to give some gutter passing asshole a full lane FOUR times?

Why give them a full lane? Anyway, it's luck of the draw whether a
filtering bike beats cars or not. The case which incenses you so much is
when the average speeds (across several blocks) are the same -- an
unlikely scenario, and certainly one that's difficult for a cyclist to
predict.


>>> That's why they get a full lane when I pass. But if they decide not to
>>> play nice and gutter pass, well then I'll treat them accordingly.

It's completely unnecessary to give a bicycle a "full lane".


>> You're just making up your own set of private rules and being petty.
>
> No I'm not making up my own rules. You gutter passers make up your own
> rules. I ride by the rules and don't gutter pass. You gutter pass me, I
> am going to assume you are perfectly comfortable with that amount of space.

I was unaware of IL's odd 8' rule for bikes. Ours is more like yours for
cars -- pass if you can, essentially.


>>>> In urban scenes I can usually flow through traffic much
>>>> faster than the traffic is moving. I see no reason to park myself behind
>>>> a tailpipe.
>
>>> Funny. When I am driving or riding I am faster than the gutter passers.
>>> If we take the same route I will always end up repassing them.

Then you're not faster, you're averaging *exactly* the same speed, a
difficult trick. I think you protest too much.


> My favorite story is of the bicycle cop I encountered in downtown
> chicago. We were riding south out of the loop. I passed him mid-block. I
> caught a red. He ran it. I passed him mid block, caught a red, he ran it.
> rinse and repeat a few times. I kept repassing him until he turned
> (running yet another red) and was no longer following my route. Funny
> thing was, one of the lights the bike cop ran, when it turned green I was
> nearly hit by a police van that ran the red.....

The take away lesson you should have got is: 1)cops run reds on bikes
all the time, I've often been waved through reds by cops, sometimes
expressing irritation for me even stopping in the first place. 2)rigid
adherence to the letter of the law is no protection from getting smooshed.

As I originally said, the laws may exist (usually with trivial
penalties) but nobody takes them seriously except people like you.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <mKCdnY-WK4DjKAHbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding traffic
>>> but it hasn't happened yet.
>> Why? As a cyclist, you have a right to use the road, while as a motorist
>> you have a conditionally granted privilege.
>
> 1) He was talking about driving the underposted speed limit. Speed limits
> are so poorly set that driving them is impeding traffic.

Really? That's hard to believe. How do you judge it to be "underposted"
(a word I've never even heard before)? Where I come from speed limits
are set with well defined guidelines -- it's considered an engineering
discipline. How are things set in IL? Random lots?

It's even harder to believe someone would fear being pulled over for
driving the posted speed limit -- that's why assumed the context was biking

In article <CPmdnW8M-oWURAHbnZ2dnUVZ_rK3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <mKCdnY-WK4DjKAHbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I fully expect to get hassled by a cop eventually for impeding traffic
>>>> but it hasn't happened yet.
>>> Why? As a cyclist, you have a right to use the road, while as a motorist
>>> you have a conditionally granted privilege.
>>
>> 1) He was talking about driving the underposted speed limit. Speed limits
>> are so poorly set that driving them is impeding traffic.
>
> Really? That's hard to believe. How do you judge it to be "underposted"
> (a word I've never even heard before)? Where I come from speed limits
> are set with well defined guidelines -- it's considered an engineering
> discipline. How are things set in IL? Random lots?

Speed limits are supposed to be set to the 85th percentile. An
underposted speed limit is set to a lower percentile. Often in the single
digit percentile.

> It's even harder to believe someone would fear being pulled over for
> driving the posted speed limit -- that's why assumed the context was biking

Driving the posted speed limit is so much slower than the speed of
traffic it is an indicator of DUI or purposely avoiding contact with law
enforcement.

In article <7oWdnWVNVdhpTwHbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <QOCdnU9dKOjGMQHbnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> Riding a bicycle is not the same, under the law, as driving a car, which
>>> is not the same as driving a truck, which is not the same as driving a
>>> gasoline tanker, etc., etc. Even the ROW rules are similar, not identical.
>>
>> I suggest you re-read the laws of your state. In most, if not all states
>> riding a bicycle is the same except for a few differences. IL law is
>> written that way, as is the law of other states that I have read.
>>
>>
>
> What you say applies to the right of way rules, their are mountains of
> other laws that don't apply to non-motorized vehicles. Even if the ROW
> rules are similar, the penalties are usually much different, reflecting
> the obvious (to some) difference in liability.

We are discussing right of way rules, lane usage, etc and so forth. All
of those apply. This isn't a discussion of the things that don't apply
like having turn signals.

>>> and especially when forcing the same car to pass you
>>> multiple times as a result)

> What do drivers want to do -- get to their destinations
> (which they will do anyways,) or just be ahead of
> everybody else?
>
> Putting everybody in the RV mirror doesn't necessarily
> get you there any more effectively. As long as they're
> not making you repeatedly touch the brake pedal, why
> worry about it?

Because the kind of cyclists who do this regard it as drivers' problem
if they get stuck behind the cyclist on a narrow section of the street
as a direct result. Those cyclists are asking to be run off the road.

> I'll tell ya what, though -- when you're on a bike,
> everybody else just pathologically /has/ to get ahead
> of you, no matter how fast you're going, or how unsafe
> passing you will be, or if you're in a school or playground
> zone. It's, like, ignominy to so many people, to ever
> be seen or caught dead behind a bicycle. And this is the
> case not only for drivers, but other, fellow riders as well.

It's just common sense to be unwilling to remain behind a fundamentally
slower road user. Cyclists who won't respect this need to be taught
their place.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <7oWdnWVNVdhpTwHbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

>> What you say applies to the right of way rules, their are mountains of
>> other laws that don't apply to non-motorized vehicles. Even if the ROW
>> rules are similar, the penalties are usually much different, reflecting
>> the obvious (to some) difference in liability.
>
> We are discussing right of way rules, lane usage, etc and so forth. All
> of those apply.

Well, specifically we were discussing passing on the right. Both of our
states have differences in how cars and bike are treated there -- and
the differences are different!

MA allows bikes to pass on the right, even where cars may not --
unqualified by any minimum distance. IL apparently has no qualifications
for cars, but requires 8' of pavement for bikes. The behavior which you
take such a hostile attitude towards is perfectly legal in my state --
preferentially so for bikes.

Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking. Motor vehicle
operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.

The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
unnecessarily restrictive. I realize it's popular among some cycling
advocates, I've listened to the arguments, and I simply disagree. I
don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think that's a
reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and liabilities.
Where enforcement is lax and fines are small I guess it's an academic
argument. I only jump in the fray when cyclists get hostile towards
other cyclists with different views or try to ram through laws that
represent their tastes.

John David Galt wrote:

>> I'll tell ya what, though -- when you're on a bike,
>> everybody else just pathologically /has/ to get ahead
>> of you, no matter how fast you're going, or how unsafe
>> passing you will be, or if you're in a school or playground
>> zone. It's, like, ignominy to so many people, to ever
>> be seen or caught dead behind a bicycle. And this is the
>> case not only for drivers, but other, fellow riders as well.

> It's just common sense to be unwilling to remain behind a fundamentally
> slower road user. Cyclists who won't respect this need to be taught
> their place.

Then why are drivers willing to stay behind other slower road users such
as tractors or construction equipment, or sightseers driving
significantly less than the posted limit? When I encounter them, I pass
them on the left, whether I'm driving, or riding. Why that solution
hasn't occurred to you is a mystery to me.

Peter Cole wrote:

> I don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think that's
> a reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and liabilities.

That's a selfish attitude on your part. If you want to use roads, then
you should be willing to follow the right-of-way rules.

Brent P wrote:
> In article <yfCdnTWmvuSRQQHbnZ2dnUVZ_vm3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:

>>> They aren't my private rules. They are codified IL vehicle code which is
>>> similiar to that of most states.
>
>> Not really (unfortunately).
>
> Yes really.

No, with respect to passing on the right, IL is different than any other
state I know of, certainly very different than mine.

>
>>> You're the one operating under a private
>>> set of rules.
>
>> Somewhat. But having considered the issues of practicality and ethics,
>> I'm comfortable with my adjustments.
>
> ethics? You mean you skimming by with inches then demanding minimum
> clearances when being repassed? That's not ethical in my book.

Sure. What possible danger do I pose to them? What potential danger do
they pose to me? See the difference?

>>> And vindictive? The law doesn't require me to give bicyclists a full lane
>>> to pass them. That's what I do because I feel that should be done. But if
>>> a bicycle rider is going to be a gutter passing fool, well then, why
>>> should I make the effort for him? He gets the minimum due care, which is
>>> simply not hitting him.
>
>> I don't think that's the currently legal even in your strange state. If
>> it is, it's apparently about to be changed to a 3' minimum -- you better
>> start practicing.
>
> Until the new law goes in effect, that is the law. And if you didn't give
> me 3 feet when gutter passing, don't expect it when being repassed for
> the 3rd time.

I think the new law is a good one. It is similar to places with larger
bike cultures like Germany. I've argued for it here (MA), but the local
"advocates" are "vehicularists" and resist any idea that would upset
parity. I'm sorry, until the laws of physics give us parity, the state
laws shouldn't either.

Perhaps 3' is too much in a state with as many narrow roads as ours, but
to leave it to the discretion of the drivers when they pass and yet
require bikes have a minimum clearance when they are the passers seems
exactly backwards from a liability point of view. The propose IL law
would move things more toward parity, still a long way from being enough.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we ignore
> the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just
> convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

Cyclist's right to use the road goes back to the middle ages, if not
further. In other words, it was built-in, no laws had to be passed to
grant them the right (that's why it's called a right). Motor vehicles
have always required permission and compliance with an ever stricter set
of codes.

You can't ban bicycles from public roads. If local authorities tried to
do it, state authorities would override, if states tried it, the feds
would override. Right of free passage on public lands is sacrosanct. To
accuse scofflaw cyclists of risking that right is invoking the bogeyman.

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

>> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we
>> ignore the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just
>> convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

> You can't ban bicycles from public roads.

Probably not, but those driving motor vehicles can make riding far more
risky for all of us because of cyclists with attitudes like yours. By
following the rules and conventions of the road, you make it easier for
other users to predict your actions, and you will make it less risky to
ride, not only for yourself, but for other riders as well
(generalizations and all that).

In article <wuidnaknntjxngDbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> Outside of rather arbitrary and inconsistent right of way rules, bicycle
> riding is very much on the same legal footing as walking.

Um, no. Same as a vehicle. Walking right of way rules are inferior unless
you enjoy being confined to sidewalks and crosswalks.

> Motor vehicle
> operation has huge liability issues, so it is reasonable to be heavily
> regulated by the state -- unlike bikes.

None of those regulations have anything to do with right of way.

> The one-size-fits-all "vehicular" model for bicycling is naive and
> unnecessarily restrictive.

Imagine for a moment that bicycles were dominate vehicle on the roads.
Your concept of right of way simply doesn't scale. The result would be
chaos. I have had many near collisions and a few collisions with
bicycle riders like you while I was biking. The concept you ride under only
'works'sorta kinda because automobiles are the most used vehicle on the
road and are following, for the most part predictable rules. Replace them
with vehicles operating under your rules and the whole thing falls apart.

> I realize it's popular among some cycling
> advocates, I've listened to the arguments, and I simply disagree. I
> don't want equal status, I want preferential status and I think that's a
> reasonable attitude given the relative vulnerabilities and liabilities.

Your ideas don't scale and thusly are not workable.

In article <cr6dnW_kSt1JlgDbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <yfCdnTWmvuSRQQHbnZ2dnUVZ_vm3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>
>>>> They aren't my private rules. They are codified IL vehicle code which is
>>>> similiar to that of most states.
>>
>>> Not really (unfortunately).
>>
>> Yes really.
>
> No, with respect to passing on the right, IL is different than any other
> state I know of, certainly very different than mine.

Losing track of things? It's still not my private rules, but the rules of
the road for the state.

>>>> You're the one operating under a private
>>>> set of rules.

>>> Somewhat. But having considered the issues of practicality and ethics,
>>> I'm comfortable with my adjustments.

>> ethics? You mean you skimming by with inches then demanding minimum
>> clearances when being repassed? That's not ethical in my book.

> Sure. What possible danger do I pose to them? What potential danger do
> they pose to me? See the difference?

You could easily do 1-2 grand in body damage to my property as you
violate the rules. You could easily get yourself hit and do damage to my
property. That's what gutter passers are doing. Yet you demand space to
protect yourself and your property? Hypocrite.

>>>> And vindictive? The law doesn't require me to give bicyclists a full lane
>>>> to pass them. That's what I do because I feel that should be done. But if
>>>> a bicycle rider is going to be a gutter passing fool, well then, why
>>>> should I make the effort for him? He gets the minimum due care, which is
>>>> simply not hitting him.

>>> I don't think that's the currently legal even in your strange state. If
>>> it is, it's apparently about to be changed to a 3' minimum -- you better
>>> start practicing.

>> Until the new law goes in effect, that is the law. And if you didn't give
>> me 3 feet when gutter passing, don't expect it when being repassed for
>> the 3rd time.

> I think the new law is a good one. It is similar to places with larger
> bike cultures like Germany. I've argued for it here (MA), but the local
> "advocates" are "vehicularists" and resist any idea that would upset
> parity. I'm sorry, until the laws of physics give us parity, the state
> laws shouldn't either.

I think it's a good law, but it comes with following the vehicle code. If
you throw out the vehicle code well then, you 'take your chances'.

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469c0602$0$16367$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Brent P? wrote:
>> In article <rvmdnRycgqJVQAbbnZ2dnUVZ_sK3nZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>> You haven't lived until you've made a driver angry by preventing him
>>>> from kissing up his front bumper to the rear bumper of a car in front
>>>> of you. :)
>>
>>> Sure, that's one of the problems with "vehicular" cycling -- it really
>>> pisses some drivers off.
>>
>> Better that dead from riding stupidly.
>>> I'm convinced that many drivers think that it's illegal for cyclists to
>>> be on the road at all, while others think it's tolerable only if you
>>> never impede their progress (give unlimited unilateral right of way).
>>> It's pointless to argue with these people, I know, I've tried.
>>
>> And I won't feed their nonsense by behaving the way they see all
>> bicyclists.
>
> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we ignore
> the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle just convinces
> more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.

I guess. To me it's not a black-and-white thing of "obey the letter of the
law at all times." Given that the vast majority of motorists regularly
violate speed limit laws and the letter of the law with regard to stop signs
and right on red turns, it's sheer hypocrisy for these same motorists to
complain about "illegal" biking behavior that harms no one and is safely
done. There's a world of difference between a rolling stop through a stop
sign and BLOWING through it on your bicycle...

brink