Why Cycling will never be accepted by road users PERIOD

Originally Posted by Edudbor

[font=&quot]Funny - when someone is winning a debate, he rarely has to announce it

The first thing I'll point out is that you have completely avoided answering the question I directed at you. Namely, to explain why you feel bicycles aren't accepted by motor vehicle operators.

If you want to recap our conversation thus far, here's how it began

1.) I offer my opinion on the topic of this thread
2.) You play e-thug and talk about giving people a face full of anti-bear something or other
3.) I call you pathetic.

You can scroll up and check, that's pretty much how it went down. If you want to disagree, please include specific quotes and timestamps.

You mention the law, and then you advocate breaking it. That's hypocritical. You expect others to follow the law, but think its okay for you to follow a different set of laws. I point that out. You don't like me pointing it out? Oh well.

You describe a situation that I say is highly unlikely (you breaking a window, of a moving vehicle, whose driver is trying to hurt you, while on a bicycle). Then you say 'Well ummm look here is a product that would help me do it'. Then you later admit you don't ride with it. That does nothing to make your claim more likely. Let me give you an analogy...

You make a claim (I drove 400 miles in my car in 2 hours)
I say that is unlikely (I don't think you can drive 400 miles in your car in 2 hours)
You counter with an irrelevant point (Here is a link to a jet plane that goes 700 miles in 2 hours)

See, in that example...if you had a jet plane, your point would relevant. If you don't carry your little window breaking device on your bicycle, the fact that it exists has nothing to do with your ability to break someone's window. There are many devices and tools that can break a window. I expect the average bicycle rider to carry none of them. And that's why I felt as though your hypothetical response to a hypothetical situation was 'unlikely'. [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]I still think it's unlikely, with or without your device (not the issue of whether or not you can break a car window - but the larger issue; I think your attempt to stop/harm the driver has no positive outcome. The most likely result is you getting run over; even if you manage to spray the driver with your bear spray - people's natural reaction will be to break and pull off the road. You are on the right hand side of the vehicle and pulling off the road means....turning to the right. Or he swerves into oncoming traffic and takes out a family riding to soccer practice. But none of that is a concern to you, because you won't let someone bully you! Safety of others be damned! Legal consequences be damned!

But tell me, please, since you think you are 'winning' this 'debate' - could you identify what points of contention you feel as though you've won? I'm really curious. And while you are at it, why don't you try answering the question posed in this thread? You seem to dislike my answer...maybe you've got a better one?

There is such a thing as looking for a fight. Going through life with a chip on your shoulder. I'm guessing you've got a small wee-wee or are under 5'5". Being a dick does little to help your cause, and while you say you won't go starting fights, your posts here certainly don't support it. Which one of us was the first to mention physically harming someone? Me....or you? [/font]

[font=&quot]Here, let me make it easy for you. These are actual quotes, in chronological order from the both of us.

Me (Post #1): "I could be wrong, but that's my take on it. If the bicycle could keep up with the flow of traffic, I wouldn't mind it at all. And, yes, I realize I'll now be riding my bike to work and pissing off other people who feel the same way as me...but there is no possible route that will let me avoid these types of roads. I don't like it anymore than they do"

You (Post #2): "if I'm the guy in front of you on the bike and you get too rambunctious for my tastes, you're going to end up with a face full of bear repellent."

'Too rambunctious for your tastes'? Don't see how that would be the EXACT same rationalization a driver would use to swerve at you, honk, or yell? I'm advocating respecting the law, even if it's annoying. If everyone did this, nobody would swerve or honk at you (at least here in CO it's illegal to do so). But if everyone adopted your philosophy, anytime anyone didn't like anything you did, they'd be free to break the law and take matters into their own hands. Just as you advocate in your first response to me.[/font]

Originally Posted by Edudbor

I'm not a cyclist (not yet anyway). I've clocked exactly *zero* minutes on my bicycle so far (bought it today). So, I feel I'm a good candidate to give the 'drivers' perspective; or at least my own views on the issue....

(...)

Really, I don't mean that to be offensive. But, look at it from the perspective of a driver.

(...)

And while they will be annoyed with me, I'll now be annoyed with them. Because now cars are a headache for me.

Originally Posted by caracol40

Edudbor,

I am personnally a passionate (compulsive ?) cyclist, and ride more miles every year than I drive. I am totally convinced that cyclists have an equal right to the road - if not, morally speaking (sorry, I can't help thinking that the greenhouse effect is a real issue and that I should save at least some gas for my kids to use) - more right to the road(*). Even so, I occasionnally drive, and I sometimes feel a minor irritation not to be able to pass a cyclist within seconds - so I can understand what you are saying.

Originally Posted by caracol40

Edudbor,

I find interesting your viewpoint as a car driver but future cyclist. And, although I don't agree with all your statements, I find appalling the amount of uppercase shouting and frantic arguing that your posts raise in this thread.

Originally Posted by NORECUMYET

Do you want to know what I find appalling? It's the number of idiots, yes IDIOTS! (Since when is using caps a crime?) who feel the need to comment on things that they have absolutely NO experience in or about. I haven't post a statement for a while now. I've been too busy running, lifting weights, and yes, cycling to spend much time here. I will scan much of the debate that's gone by since the last time I was here. I got tired of trying to debate with MR. DUD BORE. Yes I did break some typical debate rules. I questioned his sexuality and just plain engaged in some name-calling. What can I say? I tired quickly of MR. DUD BORE. I kept feeling like I was in familiar territory. I finally realized where that territory was. Arguing with DUD BORE was EXACTLY like arguing with a WOMAN. No offense intended to women, but when you think you know your opponent, and it seems to turn out that said opponent MIGHT very well be misrepresenting him or herself, it can throw a monkey wrench into the soup. And it's just plain not right. At least have the decency to announce who and what you are.

Mr. DUD BORE originally chapped my hide with his Pansy like attitude (Yes I'm calling names again. He's either a Pansy, or a female. This is the rub.) about how much it bothers him if he has to wait for a few seconds behind a cyclist. He later elaborates to let us know that lines in Supermarkets, this, that, and the other all get his panties in a bunch. He finishes this little tirade by letting us know that even Brittany Spears annoys him. Now I don't know about the rest of the guys out there reading this but that sounded really Gay to me. Most men’s opinion on Brittany Spears is the following. She's hot, a nut job which translates into damn good in the sack, and to top it off, she's rich. What more do you want? Brittany darlin' you can annoy me anytime you like, for as long as you like. Now you may wonder why I bring up this little tart on a cycling site. Well, I didn't start the subject but I do enjoy making fun of DUD BORE for doing so himself. Once again, I'm really starting to think DUD BORE is really a girl. If not then he's got a lot of shall we say, traits.

Now believe it or not I'll comment on the actual subject that DUD BORE posed to begin with. He comments that Drivers and cyclists will NEVER get along. I do agree that DUD BORE will more than likely have trouble with ANYONE he comes in contact with. Just check the attitude and his list of things that bother him. Kind of says it all I think.

I will repeat what I've said in more than one post now. I think the vast majority of Drivers out there are great people. They're kind, courteous, and literally go out of their way to give cyclists more than their share of the road, so the idea that we will never get along is ludicrous. There are many trends that Americans seem to follow Europeans on. I believe that the cycling thing will definitely be one of them. We will, as a matter of necessity, have more people riding bicycles every year. In time, cyclist will get more infrastructures, and more laws in their favor. They will also command more respect than they now have and incidents of road rage towards us by people that are even thrown by a Pop Stars latest shenanigans will continue to decline.

I do think that one tool we as cyclists have to aid in this decline is to make sure that the rumor mill is in our favor. I say the following. If some Jack Ass thinks it's amusing to drive past you at seventy miles an hour and gets his side view mirror literally inches from your bike, then you not only have a right, but an obligation to cyclists everywhere to do whatever is in your power make him remember just what he has done. If that means pulling his sorry ass out of the car to give him a bath in pepper spray than so be it. Of course there are many, many different approaches to justice. They are only limited by your imagination.

Now, if someone actually hits you with their car then all rules go out the window. That is assault with a deadly weapon, and attempted murder and in my mind you've been given the inalienable right to do almost anything to see to it that this person thinks real hard before doing something like it again.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting the police involved. Unfortunately we all know just how difficult it is to obtain all the necessary evidence and or witnesses in your favor. Because of this I'm all for instant justice. Sorry DUD BORE, I know this upsets your delicate sensibilities. If you don't want to see more venom spewed in your direction you can refrain from commenting. Either way doesn't make any difference to me. I think it's quite obvious how much I enjoy our little encounters.

Originally Posted by Edudbor

Dude - are you still here? You have the maturity level of an 8-year old. I went through your posts; this quote is from *you*.

"I began to think that bicycling on public roads might not be a good place for either a bicycle or a rider with a personality such as my own. "

That's why I stopped posting here. There is no point to it. By your own admission you have an attitude problem and shouldn't be on the road...and you are carrying it with you into the internet.

So go ahead, tough guy, call me some more names. I'm really torn up by it. In fact, the tears are making it hard to type.

Originally Posted by NORECUMYET

Well well well. So, I have the maturity of an eight year old huh? I find that an interesting premise coming from you MR. DUD BORE. Why you ask? Let's see. Who was it that STARTED this whole ridiculous concept that cyclists and motorists will NEVER GET ALONG? HMMM, I think it was.........YOU! Who said, several times, that if trapped behind a cyclist, on a bridge with no bike lane, that he or she was very annoyed? (What does ALL ROAD RAGE start with by the way? I don't think it's a warm happy feeling.) Who was it that said even a slow line at the grocery store got his or her dander up? Who was it that said, and this one's the best quote of them all, that Britney Spears annoys him or her?

You may not be torn up, you may not be losing sleep, (I’m very skeptical about these claims by the way) but one thing is painfully clear about just what IS happening in your mind. I can accurately say this by simply reading what you have said in your own words. This is bugging the crap out of you. I have gotten under your skin, thoroughly! Why do I say this? Well, you said yourself that you went back through my posts. (Lots of time on your hands I suppose.) And, it took you all of what, a few hours, to go through my posts and hence reply with your own version of disparaging MY personality. I guess it's the age-old problem, you can dish it out but don't anyone dare to serve it back up to you.

I leave this post with this/these thought/s. You quite obviously love the abuse. You know exactly how to stop it but instead you keep begging for more. No problem. As I've said before I do find it to be an amusing pass time when I'm done with work for the day. Also, I learned to take it all like water off a ducks back many years ago. I consider it to be like a strange game of tennis.

I also find it odd that you are obviously compelled to reply to EVERY post on the subject YOU started. (Why would one continue to argue with an eight year old by the way?) but you haven't commented on my jabs about whether or not you are a man, a woman, or some strange something or another in between the two. I know, this fact doesn't necessarily mean ANYTHING at all. I do however find it odd nonetheless.

Oh by the way. You like to keep calling me "Tough Guy". I suppose in your weak way you're trying to say that I'm some sort of bully. I know you like re-reading my posts, so do it again and find me a quote in where I say anything about EVER doing anything violent unless it's either in direct defense or in retaliation for something that could have easily killed me or left me maimed for life. I have in twenty or more years of cycling actually only had ONE physical altercation with anyone. That's the one I wrote about wherein I threw my bike at a guys Volvo. And, he did have it coming, and I was in fear of my safety when I did this, and, it was a reaction that didn't require forethought. It happened as a matter of self-preservation and instinct. As far as I could tell he was making the first moves required to physically attack me. Being that he had already proven that he had no problem in taking my life in his hands, I took his actions very seriously. So, if defending myself makes me a "Tough Guy", then I will from this point on take the moniker you've given me as a compliment. Thank you and as always, if you want more you know how to procure it. Bye Bye.

P.S.(A long one.) Of course the passage you chose to quote was severely out of context. (One of many weak tactics used by a desperate individual who knows he's getting trounced) What I meant by that quote is this. I don't have the kind of personality that will allow me to turn the other cheek so to speak if someone throws a full "Big Gulp" cup full of ice out the window at me whilst moving at approximately sixty miles an hour. I was doing nothing more than riding in the bike lane when this projectile whizzed past my left ear missing it by not more than one inch. I was able to find these high school yahoos after they had parked in their driveway. ( I know DUD BORE, I couldn't have possibly done this right?) They came out to find me writing down their license plate number. When they asked nervously what I was doing I simply replied, "If you smell smoke in the middle of the night, you'll know who tossed the match." This comment was meant to do what I've mentioned a number of times regarding this subject. It was meant to hopefully get these kids to think twice before doing something that stupid again. No I didn't burn the house down, nor did I ever entertain the thought. It was just blowing smoke. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had been hit in the head by two pounds of ice traveling 60 MPH. (By the way, it scared the hell out of me and I was shaking during this confrontation. I guess if you face something even if it scares you then.....)

What would you have done DUD BORE? Stomped your feet and got on the computer to tell everyone how annoyed you were? Or would you have done something similar? Or even just called the police? Would that revenge action have made you a "Tough Guy" too? Yes calling the police has a degree of vengeance to it. No one is immune to the desire to "get even" when someone has done something really nasty to them.

Originally Posted by caracol40

Edudbor,

I find interesting your viewpoint as a car driver but future cyclist. And, although I don't agree with all your statements, I find appalling the amount of uppercase shouting and frantic arguing that your posts raise in this thread.

I am personnally a passionate (compulsive ?) cyclist, and ride more miles every year than I drive. I am totally convinced that cyclists have an equal right to the road - if not, morally speaking (sorry, I can't help thinking that the greenhouse effect is a real issue and that I should save at least some gas for my kids to use) - more right to the road(*). Even so, I occasionnally drive, and I sometimes feel a minor irritation not to be able to pass a cyclist within seconds - so I can understand what you are saying.

I live in an area where cycling is quite popular as a hobby, but rather marginal as a means of transportation. Being "accepted" on the road very much depends when you cycle. Absolutely no problem on a Sunday morning. It is OK also during rush hours in summer, because in summer at least one half of all car drivers are going to ride their own bike one sunny afternoon. Much less OK in winter, because all these people have become 100% cagers again and have forgotten that bicycles exist - and they wouldn't think of riding in such a cold weather. And if by any chance you are out late on a Saturday night (which I sometimes do in the course of long distance rides), some drunk teenagers will actually feel personally offended that you dare do something as ridiculous as riding a bike, and they will show it by shouting at you or possibly by threatening you with their 4-wheeled weapon.
So my view of why cyclists are, or are not, accepted on the road is that they are accepted not depending on the amount of disturbance they may cause to the motorized "traffic flow", but rather depending on whether riding a bike at this time and place is perceived as "socially acceptable".

Now, coming back to the somewhat violent contradiction you may raise on this forum. I think that cyclists, overall, endure quite a lot of outrage on the road. Some can't take it, may not be very motivated, and quit riding. Some choose to continue riding but often have to fight for it - to fight their fear, to fight for their right to the road, to learn how to resist the pressure of traffic. So while you are comfortably seated behind your wheel, contemplating this "minor annoyance" of a cyclist, said cyclist may be actively resisting his impulse to move even more to the right, because he knows that if he does so (to help you) the guy following you will leave him even less space, and so on until he gets no space at all. I think this minor but continuous "fight for some space", or "fight for some respect" does sometimes influence our moods and make us more aggressive than we should be - both on the road and in the cycling forums.

I hope you will nevertheless find interest and pleasure in cycling, and if you do I would be curious to read how you perceive these relationships in, say, 6 months.


(*) Ha ! I know this is a debatable statement - but I couldn't resist

Originally Posted by e0richt

I feel this is more a problem of not having infrastructure suited to cyclists/motorists so that tension is minimized...

but the ideal (which we have not achieved yet) is that the cyclist is treated as a driver of a vehicle but have the infrastructure to allow for them to be passed by motorists without undue antagonism (for lack of a better term)
but until that infrastructure has been updated, the cyclist has to be treated as a driver of a vehicle...

Originally Posted by threaded

Infrastructure is not the whole answer. I have seen cyclists knocked off by cars on the cycle path here in Denmark. In most cases the cars decided to go up the kerb onto the cycle path to overtake other cars on the inside and ended up rear-ended the cyclists. They could absolutely see the cyclists, but chose to use their vehicle as a weapon of intimidation, and when the cyclists did not give way quick enough the car driver shunted them. It so happened the cyclists weren't even aware there was a car behind them. Why would they? It's a cycle path... In other cases the cars have 'raced' the cyclists to a junction, where the car wishes to turn, but the cyclist has the right of way for straight on. One incident I saw unfold in front of me: the cyclist also had a green light and the car ran a red to hit them...

A simple removal of driving licenses for extended periods from these kind of motorists is the answer. Along with stiff penalties for driving without a license.

The minister for transport here lost her driving license for knocking a scooter rider off with a cutting-up turn onto a marked cycle-path (the cycle path is painted a light blue at junctions to indicate to motorists to take extra care). But a simple repeat driving test got it back again. Not really much of a punishment for an action that could have easily killed a cyclist. What sort of message does it send?

Originally Posted by Edudbor

I'm not a cyclist (not yet anyway). I've clocked exactly *zero* minutes on my bicycle so far (bought it today). So, I feel I'm a good candidate to give the 'drivers' perspective; or at least my own views on the issue....

The reason I didn't like (and still don't like) people on bicycles isn't because they don't follow certain safety rules. I rarely drive at night, and I even more rarely, see someone on a bike without appropriate safety gear. The simple truth is, I don't like cyclists because they are fairly annoying.

Really, I don't mean that to be offensive. But, look at it from the perspective of a driver. The law says bicycles and cars are supposed to share the same roadways and follow pretty much the same laws. If I'm driving down a 1 lane road, with no bike path or shoulder - with a speed limit of 55mph and a cyclist is in front of me doing 15mph that's annoying. I'd be equally annoyed if another car was doing 15mph in front of me. Passing the biker often means crossing over into oncoming traffic and is just generally a minor annoyance.

Now, I *fully* understand (now more than ever) that in most places (like where I live) the cyclist doesn't particularly WANT to be on that stretch of road. He'd rather be in a bike lane, or on a street with a speed limit of 25. He's worried that I'm not going to see him, or worse, *WANT* to hurt him; and he'd much rather have me going a mere 10 mphs faster than him instead of 30mph.

I could be wrong, but that's my take on it. If the bicycle could keep up with the flow of traffic, I wouldn't mind it at all. And, yes, I realize I'll now be riding my bike to work and pissing off other people who feel the same way as me...but there is no possible route that will let me avoid these types of roads. I don't like it anymore than they do. And while they will be annoyed with me, I'll now be annoyed with them. Because now cars are a headache for me.