When to honk at a bicyclist



Badger_South said:
Sounds like a troll. Did they impede you for more than, say 3 seconds tops?

Did they endanger you in your 2 ton metal cage? Poor thing.

Urge to beep isn't related to anything about reputation or justification;
it's just anger that something small and vulnerable asserted momentary
dominance.

-B
Click to expand...
It's an attitude that an individual should establish dominance while using the road that causes problems in the first place, whether that attitude is shown by "cage" drivers or cyclists.
 
Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:22:31 GMT, "Fred Hall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >When to honk:
> >
> >When you want to see how quickly a person can remove one hand from the drops
> >and raise the middle finger of said hand high in the air...
> >---
> >But seriously...about a month ago while driving I came up behind four guys
> >probably my age (late forties) on a two lane country road, ambling along at
> >probably 10 - 12 mph (no spandex to be seen), gabbing to each other, 4
> >abreast - 2 in each lane...they took their sweet time, gave me a dirty look
> >for daring to be on the same road with them, then the two in the "wrong"
> >(passing) lane moved over so I had to go in the passing lane to get by
> >them...stretching out single file never seemed to occur to them. Being a
> >cyclist I didn't lay on the horn, but I sure wanted to...it's actions like
> >that that give us all a bad reputation.
>
> Sounds like a troll. Did they impede you for more than, say 3 seconds tops?
>
> Did they endanger you in your 2 ton metal cage? Poor thing.
>
> Urge to beep isn't related to anything about reputation or justification;
> it's just anger that something small and vulnerable asserted momentary
> dominance.

Maybe it's that attitude that caused those truckers to harass you.
Keep asserting your dominance and you'll wind up dead.
 
>Subject: Re: When to honk at a bicyclist
>From: [email protected] (R.White)
>Date: 10/17/2004 8:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:22:31 GMT, "Fred Hall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >When to honk:
>> >
>> >When you want to see how quickly a person can remove one hand from the
>drops
>> >and raise the middle finger of said hand high in the air...
>> >---
>> >But seriously...about a month ago while driving I came up behind four guys
>> >probably my age (late forties) on a two lane country road, ambling along
>at
>> >probably 10 - 12 mph (no spandex to be seen), gabbing to each other, 4
>> >abreast - 2 in each lane...they took their sweet time, gave me a dirty
>look
>> >for daring to be on the same road with them, then the two in the "wrong"
>> >(passing) lane moved over so I had to go in the passing lane to get by
>> >them...stretching out single file never seemed to occur to them. Being a
>> >cyclist I didn't lay on the horn, but I sure wanted to...it's actions like
>> >that that give us all a bad reputation.
>>
>> Sounds like a troll. Did they impede you for more than, say 3 seconds tops?
>>
>> Did they endanger you in your 2 ton metal cage? Poor thing.
>>
>> Urge to beep isn't related to anything about reputation or justification;
>> it's just anger that something small and vulnerable asserted momentary
>> dominance.
>
>Maybe it's that attitude that caused those truckers to harass you.
>Keep asserting your dominance and you'll wind up dead.
>

Yep...really BAD advice to gve others as well. You can be right and dead at the
same time.
 
On 17 Oct 2004 06:05:36 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>> Did they endanger you in your 2 ton metal cage? Poor thing.
>>
>> Urge to beep isn't related to anything about reputation or justification;
>> it's just anger that something small and vulnerable asserted momentary
>> dominance.
>
>Maybe it's that attitude that caused those truckers to harass you.
>Keep asserting your dominance and you'll wind up dead.

Yeah but you'll still be an asshole.
;-)
-B
 
Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 17 Oct 2004 06:05:36 -0700, [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >> Did they endanger you in your 2 ton metal cage? Poor thing.
> >>
> >> Urge to beep isn't related to anything about reputation or justification;
> >> it's just anger that something small and vulnerable asserted momentary
> >> dominance.
> >
> >Maybe it's that attitude that caused those truckers to harass you.
> >Keep asserting your dominance and you'll wind up dead.
>
> Yeah but you'll still be an asshole.

I'd rather been thought of as an asshole in a newsgroup
than be a real life moron who insists they must "assert dominance"
no matter what situation they are in. That attitude alone makes YOU
the asshole and gives other cyclists a bad name. It's too bad someone
else in the area you ride may fall victim to some idiot driver that
you ****** off earlier when you showed them who was in charge of
the road.

Please re-plonk me.
 
17 Oct 2004 16:16:28 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
another damned idiot, [email protected] (R.White) repeated:

>and gives other cyclists a bad name. It's too bad someone
>else in the area you ride may fall victim to some idiot driver that
>you ****** off earlier when you showed them who was in charge of
>the road.

Do you idiots make up these kinds of stories just to scare yourselves
or because you're unable to take responsibility for your own actions?

How about because of your deplorable habits every White in the phone
book should start getting crank calls and letter bombs?

Maybe it's because you're ready to excuse murderous drivers assaulting
cyclists. "The way they were dressed they were just askin' for it"!

Substantiate your silly boogie man myth with documented cases or STFU.
--
zk
 
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:59:34 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email protected]>
wrote:

>17 Oct 2004 16:16:28 -0700,
><[email protected]>,
>another damned idiot, [email protected] (R.White) repeated:
>
>>and gives other cyclists a bad name. It's too bad someone
>>else in the area you ride may fall victim to some idiot driver that
>>you ****** off earlier when you showed them who was in charge of
>>the road.
>
>Do you idiots make up these kinds of stories just to scare yourselves
>or because you're unable to take responsibility for your own actions?
>
>How about because of your deplorable habits every White in the phone
>book should start getting crank calls and letter bombs?
>
>Maybe it's because you're ready to excuse murderous drivers assaulting
>cyclists. "The way they were dressed they were just askin' for it"!
>
>Substantiate your silly boogie man myth with documented cases or STFU.

I vote with STFU, and him changing his handle to car-lover which suits his
trolling ass better. Idiot drivers don't need any 'reason' to act ******
off at bikers, and we've seen how they act with their own kids in the car,
not paying attention, yakking on the cell, caring less if they run up a
telephone pole or into a semi.

-B
 
Crying in his Cheerios,Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 17 Oct 2004 16:16:28 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) repeated:
>
> >and gives other cyclists a bad name. It's too bad someone
> >else in the area you ride may fall victim to some idiot driver that
> >you ****** off earlier when you showed them who was in charge of
> >the road.
>
> Do you idiots make up these kinds of stories just to scare yourselves
> or because you're unable to take responsibility for your own actions?

Shouldn't you be out riding at some Critical Mass ride, spreading
goodwill among the motoring public?

> How about because of your deplorable habits every White in the phone
> book should start getting crank calls and letter bombs?

Be my guest, I'm unlisted.

> Maybe it's because you're ready to excuse murderous drivers assaulting
> cyclists. "The way they were dressed they were just askin' for it"!

I'm not ready to excuse any deliberate, bad behaviour whether it be
from an automobile driver or a cyclist. It works both ways.

> Substantiate your silly boogie man myth with documented cases or STFU.

That would also apply to all those "murderous drivers."
 
"Badger_South" wrote

> Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> > (R.White) repeated:
> >
> >>and gives other cyclists a bad name. It's too bad someone
> >>else in the area you ride may fall victim to some idiot driver that
> >>you ****** off earlier when you showed them who was in charge of
> >>the road.
> >
> >Do you idiots make up these kinds of stories just to scare yourselves
> >or because you're unable to take responsibility for your own actions?
> >
> >How about because of your deplorable habits every White in the phone
> >book should start getting crank calls and letter bombs?
> >
> >Maybe it's because you're ready to excuse murderous drivers assaulting
> >cyclists. "The way they were dressed they were just askin' for it"!
> >
> >Substantiate your silly boogie man myth with documented cases or STFU.
>
> I vote with STFU, and him changing his handle to car-lover which suits
his
> trolling ass better. Idiot drivers don't need any 'reason' to act ******
> off at bikers, and we've seen how they act with their own kids in the
car,
> not paying attention, yakking on the cell, caring less if they run up a
> telephone pole or into a semi.

Nice dose of venom here, boys (especially considering that most of us ride
bikes AND drive cars....)

I disagree with this position. Just look at your last post, Badger, and
perhaps you'll see that you've made my case for me. Didn't you just malign
several groups of people (parents with kids in car, cell-phone users) with
a broad brush based on your experience with only a small group of each???

In other words, it would *really* be jim dandy if people /didn't/ see a
single @sshole cyclist doing something inanely stupid and associate future
cyclists, even innocent ones, with that action to some degree.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen it work that way. We like labels and nice,
neat buckets. People make associations like this alllll the time, Zoot.

How many of you, when somebody finds out you're a cyclist, have been asked
something like, "Why is it all you guys seem to run red lights?" or "Why is
it that when a bunch of you cyclists go for a ride together, you take up
the whole road even when there's a perfectly good designated bike path?"
I've heard these comments puh-lenty, thankyouverymuch.

I can say this much with relative certainty: discourteous behavior on the
road--regardless of how many wheels you're piloting--rarely has a positive
effect. Courtesy is very much a two-way street.

(choosing not to 'STFU' in this case)
 
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:33:07 GMT, "neil0502" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can say this much with relative certainty: discourteous behavior on the
>road--regardless of how many wheels you're piloting--rarely has a positive
>effect. Courtesy is very much a two-way street.
>
>(choosing not to 'STFU' in this case)

No need, I find your comments fair.

Generally, I'm -extremely- courteous on the road when biking, and always
wave to motorists that give me a few seconds to make make a turn, or avoid
right or left hooking me.

It's only when I'm at home ranting and raving <g> on the computer that I
express disdain for bad driving habits. On the road I'm much too focussed
on the ride, staying alive and enjoying myself.

However, I admit to being partial to bikers and allow them lots of leeway
to run stop signs, and take up the road, mostly b/c there are so few of
them, and they're probably not doing such things to annoy drivers - they
doing them to 'get by'. If I run a stop sign, it's b/c there are no cars in
sight, and it's at the beginning of a long steep section. There's a strong
urge not to unclip, so even stoplights or signs that would be simple to
stop at, I'll usually just slow to a momentary trackstand and then procede
as safely as possible.

However let me ask you this. Just how much discourteous behavior is
possible on a bike, fercrissakes? Not much. Maybe taking the road for a few
seconds too long, and running some stop signs, not just to get somewhere
sooner, but to keep from unclipping and to allow taking the next steep;
perhaps turning or weaving unpredictably. But the big thing is it's not
done in anger.

But imagine how much discourteous behavior is possible, and in fact
frequently seen in a car? Speeding, honking, buzzing, cell phoning, playing
with the radio, general inattention, eating, drinking, rapid lane changing,
tail-gating, running riders off the road, throwing things at ppl, running
stop signs, redlights. I could go on and on. The big thing here is that
most of it -is- done in anger, and b/c of immaturity.

So we all know who has to take the brunt of the suggestion to be courteous,
now, don't we? ;-)

For some drivers, just being on the road on a bike is considered
discourteous, after all bikers don't pay taxes, right? ;-D

-B
 
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:33:07 GMT, "neil0502" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I disagree with this position. Just look at your last post, Badger, and
>perhaps you'll see that you've made my case for me. Didn't you just malign
>several groups of people (parents with kids in car, cell-phone users) with
>a broad brush based on your experience with only a small group of each???

Rereading, I don't follow you here. Are you saying that cell-phone using
drivers don't deserve malignment; that there are 'good' cell-phone using
drivers?

>In other words, it would *really* be jim dandy if people /didn't/ see a
>single @sshole cyclist doing something inanely stupid and associate future
>cyclists, even innocent ones, with that action to some degree.
>Unfortunately, I haven't seen it work that way. We like labels and nice,
>neat buckets. People make associations like this alllll the time, Zoot.

I live in a town with lots of bikers, and don't drive much, but I'd say I
-rarely- see a biker. You talk like the roads are full of discourteous
cyclists. They're not.

>How many of you, when somebody finds out you're a cyclist, have been asked
>something like, "Why is it all you guys seem to run red lights?" or "Why is
>it that when a bunch of you cyclists go for a ride together, you take up
>the whole road even when there's a perfectly good designated bike path?"
>I've heard these comments puh-lenty, thankyouverymuch.

Here's where you say, 'how many times have you seen that behavior?' If they
say all the time, then you say, 'have you considered taking a different
route?' That's when you'll really get blasted, b/c to suggest to a driver
that they change their driving behavior is unheard of! ;-D

-B
 
> "Badger_South" wrote (combining two responses here)

> > "neil0502" wrote:

> >I disagree with this position. Just look at your last post, Badger, and
> >perhaps you'll see that you've made my case for me. Didn't you just
malign
> >several groups of people (parents with kids in car, cell-phone users)
with
> >a broad brush based on your experience with only a small group of
each???

> Rereading, I don't follow you here. Are you saying that cell-phone using
> drivers don't deserve malignment; that there are 'good' cell-phone using
> drivers?

Not necessarily. My point was that your statement expemplified reasoning
from the specific to the general--something many people do. [For the
record, I took **** on r.b.m. once for admitting to a small sign on my car
that says "Hang up!"]

Certainly, there are 'more conscientious' and 'less conscientious'
cell-phone using drivers (just as the same gradation might apply to other
breeds of drivers, cyclists, etc.)

> >In other words, it would *really* be jim dandy if people /didn't/ see a
> >single @sshole cyclist doing something inanely stupid and associate
future
> >cyclists, even innocent ones, with that action to some degree.
> >Unfortunately, I haven't seen it work that way. We like labels and
nice,
> >neat buckets. People make associations like this alllll the time, Zoot.

> I live in a town with lots of bikers, and don't drive much, but I'd say I
> -rarely- see a biker. You talk like the roads are full of discourteous
> cyclists. They're not.

Again, not my intent to imply that. On a national basis, many people have
much more limited experience with cyclists, making it (perhaps) easier to
draw inferences based on the behavior of a very few.

> >How many of you, when somebody finds out you're a cyclist, have been
asked
> >something like, "Why is it all you guys seem to run red lights?" or "Why
is
> >it that when a bunch of you cyclists go for a ride together, you take up
> >the whole road even when there's a perfectly good designated bike path?"
> >I've heard these comments puh-lenty, thankyouverymuch.

> Here's where you say, 'how many times have you seen that behavior?' If
they
> say all the time, then you say, 'have you considered taking a different
> route?' That's when you'll really get blasted, b/c to suggest to a driver
> that they change their driving behavior is unheard of! ;-D

Yeah, but . . . . as a cyclist, I try to limit my impact on other cyclists,
drivers, etc., etc. As a driver, I do likewise. I've tallied it up. On
an annual basis, it costs me . . . . nothing.

> Generally, I'm -extremely- courteous on the road when biking, and always
> wave to motorists that give me a few seconds to make make a turn, or
avoid
> right or left hooking me.

Didn't mean to single you out, per se.

> However let me ask you this. Just how much discourteous behavior is
> possible on a bike, fercrissakes? Not much. Maybe taking the road for a
few
> seconds too long, and running some stop signs, not just to get somewhere
> sooner, but to keep from unclipping and to allow taking the next steep;
> perhaps turning or weaving unpredictably. But the big thing is it's not
> done in anger.

I understand that. I'm a cyclist, a motorcyclist, and a driver. A cyclist
doing 75% of all of the things that a cyclist can do to be discourterous
(IMHO) is being as rude as a driver doing 75% of all the things that a
driver can do to be discourteous. The potential effect may be vastly
different, but the mindset and the antisocial behavior seem equivalent to
me.

I also don't know that Joe Weenie Driver particularly cares about the
cyclist's motivation; rather, the motorist may care only about the effect
(if any) that the cyclist has on the driver's precious commuting time, or
that they had to set down their Starbucks and swerve to avoid the bike.
Right or wrong, this does oft seem the case.

Rule #1 in negotiations: understand what's important to the other side.

> But imagine how much discourteous behavior is possible, and in fact
> frequently seen in a car?

I want us to be better than them, not as bad as, or worse than them. I
think the same way when talking to people about driving.

> So we all know who has to take the brunt of the suggestion to be
courteous,
> now, don't we? ;-)

In the political parlance: an asymmetric threat?? ;-)
 
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:33:07 GMT,
<[email protected]>,
"neil0502" <[email protected]> wrote:

>How many of you, when somebody finds out you're a cyclist, have been asked
>something like, "Why is it all you guys seem to run red lights

I just tell 'em, "You didn't see me."
--
zk
 
18 Oct 2004 08:13:59 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

>> Substantiate your silly boogie man myth with documented cases or STFU.
>
>That would also apply to all those "murderous drivers."

Hey stunned one, you're the dufus who professed that drivers will be
exacting revenge on you for what I do. That's "murderous"behaviour.

Where's the documentation? I want to see the testimonials where your
poor persecuted scud slaves have admitted in court that they ran down
cyclist B today because cyclist A jumped a curb, ran a stop or
filtered forward last week.

You're nuts to propagate such a bizarre story.

Sure, plenty of you caged fluffies are worthless twisted sickos but
not many of you are really homicidal flippers.
--
zk
 
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:58:34 GMT,
<[email protected]>, "neil0502"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rule #1 in negotiations: understand what's important to the other side.

Their erroneous sense of exclusive entitlement is being challenged.
What's important to them is to reassert their dominance.
They're childishly selfish and idiotic scum.
--
zk
 
Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:58:34 GMT,
<[email protected]>, "neil0502"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rule #1 in negotiations: understand what's important to the other side.

Their erroneous sense of exclusive entitlement is being challenged.
What's important to them is to reassert their dominance.
They're childishly selfish and idiotic scum.
--
zk
 
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:58:34 GMT, "neil0502" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah, but . . . . as a cyclist, I try to limit my impact on other cyclists,
>drivers, etc., etc. As a driver, I do likewise. I've tallied it up. On
>an annual basis, it costs me . . . . nothing.

Thinking about it, one of the things that's on my mind when biking and
encountering traffic is to project a good image to the motorists - yes, I
actually think 'if I wave, the driver will take a nice feeling about bikers
with him/her'. Of course I actually -feel- friendly also. I admit that I
rarely, if ever, have felt this when driving towards other drivers - 'oh,
let me sit up straight and yield'. (I do wave when I'm let in line,
though).

>> Generally, I'm -extremely- courteous on the road when biking, and always
>> wave to motorists that give me a few seconds to make make a turn, or
>>avoid right or left hooking me.
>
>Didn't mean to single you out, per se.
>
>> However let me ask you this. Just how much discourteous behavior is
>> possible on a bike, fercrissakes? Not much. Maybe taking the road for a
>> seconds too long, and running some stop signs, not just to get somewhere
>> sooner, but to keep from unclipping and to allow taking the next steep;
>> perhaps turning or weaving unpredictably. But the big thing is it's not
>> done in anger.
>
>I understand that. I'm a cyclist, a motorcyclist, and a driver. A cyclist
>doing 75% of all of the things that a cyclist can do to be discourterous
>(IMHO) is being as rude as a driver doing 75% of all the things that a
>driver can do to be discourteous. The potential effect may be vastly
>different, but the mindset and the antisocial behavior seem equivalent to
>me.

Not sure I follow this. I'd guess that -very- few cyclists use their bikes
to perform discourteous behavior on purpose, knowing how vulnerable they
are. Now, some behavior may end up -appearing- as discourteous, depending
on the motorist's view. I'm sure a few drivers have been miffed at seeing
me run a stop sign _even though they were several carlengths_ back from the
intersection. The reason? Jealousy that a cop would blow it off? (or in
Connecticutt that it's legal to 'yield' if no traffic").

The point is drivers -try- to find reasons to view biking behavior as
discourteous even if they were affected in -no- way by this behavior. "Oh
look that biker is weaving! That really pisses me off that they can do that
- they should be on the sidewalk!". They don't think 'oh, look that nice
biker just got stung by a bee'.

>I also don't know that Joe Weenie Driver particularly cares about the
>cyclist's motivation; rather, the motorist may care only about the effect
>(if any) that the cyclist has on the driver's precious commuting time, or
>that they had to set down their Starbucks and swerve to avoid the bike.
>Right or wrong, this does oft seem the case.

Thus it rarely matters what behavior a cyclist exhibits, it's seen as
disrespectful a priori - "the nerve, being on my road that I paid for". So
why bother? But in actuality, most bikers are trying to stay out of the way
and not provoke motorists, I'd guess.

>Rule #1 in negotiations: understand what's important to the other side.

As a driver the only important thing is that the biker try to be as
predictable as possible, which basically means giving ample warning before
turning left, and taking care so as not to be right hooked, unseen.

>> But imagine how much discourteous behavior is possible, and in fact
>> frequently seen in a car?
>
>I want us to be better than them, not as bad as, or worse than them. I
>think the same way when talking to people about driving.

Again, there are so few cyclists that it really has no effect. Have you
ever heard any drivers say anything nice about a cyclists? "he was so nice
to pull over and let me go by; he did a great job of signalling a turn" Not
likely. They will only remember the bad behavior, even if it only happened
to them once in their lifetime.

>> So we all know who has to take the brunt of the suggestion to be
>>courteous, now, don't we? ;-)
>
>In the political parlance: an asymmetric threat?? ;-)

Well in the case of motorists, huge threat to themselves, bikers and
pedestrians without even trying, and in most cases completely unaware of
that fact - else why would anyone yak on a cell phone or fish for cassette
tapes on the floor of the passenger side while driving?

-B
 
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:58:34 GMT, "neil0502" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah, but . . . . as a cyclist, I try to limit my impact on other cyclists,
>drivers, etc., etc. As a driver, I do likewise. I've tallied it up. On
>an annual basis, it costs me . . . . nothing.

Thinking about it, one of the things that's on my mind when biking and
encountering traffic is to project a good image to the motorists - yes, I
actually think 'if I wave, the driver will take a nice feeling about bikers
with him/her'. Of course I actually -feel- friendly also. I admit that I
rarely, if ever, have felt this when driving towards other drivers - 'oh,
let me sit up straight and yield'. (I do wave when I'm let in line,
though).

>> Generally, I'm -extremely- courteous on the road when biking, and always
>> wave to motorists that give me a few seconds to make make a turn, or
>>avoid right or left hooking me.
>
>Didn't mean to single you out, per se.
>
>> However let me ask you this. Just how much discourteous behavior is
>> possible on a bike, fercrissakes? Not much. Maybe taking the road for a
>> seconds too long, and running some stop signs, not just to get somewhere
>> sooner, but to keep from unclipping and to allow taking the next steep;
>> perhaps turning or weaving unpredictably. But the big thing is it's not
>> done in anger.
>
>I understand that. I'm a cyclist, a motorcyclist, and a driver. A cyclist
>doing 75% of all of the things that a cyclist can do to be discourterous
>(IMHO) is being as rude as a driver doing 75% of all the things that a
>driver can do to be discourteous. The potential effect may be vastly
>different, but the mindset and the antisocial behavior seem equivalent to
>me.

Not sure I follow this. I'd guess that -very- few cyclists use their bikes
to perform discourteous behavior on purpose, knowing how vulnerable they
are. Now, some behavior may end up -appearing- as discourteous, depending
on the motorist's view. I'm sure a few drivers have been miffed at seeing
me run a stop sign _even though they were several carlengths_ back from the
intersection. The reason? Jealousy that a cop would blow it off? (or in
Connecticutt that it's legal to 'yield' if no traffic").

The point is drivers -try- to find reasons to view biking behavior as
discourteous even if they were affected in -no- way by this behavior. "Oh
look that biker is weaving! That really pisses me off that they can do that
- they should be on the sidewalk!". They don't think 'oh, look that nice
biker just got stung by a bee'.

>I also don't know that Joe Weenie Driver particularly cares about the
>cyclist's motivation; rather, the motorist may care only about the effect
>(if any) that the cyclist has on the driver's precious commuting time, or
>that they had to set down their Starbucks and swerve to avoid the bike.
>Right or wrong, this does oft seem the case.

Thus it rarely matters what behavior a cyclist exhibits, it's seen as
disrespectful a priori - "the nerve, being on my road that I paid for". So
why bother? But in actuality, most bikers are trying to stay out of the way
and not provoke motorists, I'd guess.

>Rule #1 in negotiations: understand what's important to the other side.

As a driver the only important thing is that the biker try to be as
predictable as possible, which basically means giving ample warning before
turning left, and taking care so as not to be right hooked, unseen.

>> But imagine how much discourteous behavior is possible, and in fact
>> frequently seen in a car?
>
>I want us to be better than them, not as bad as, or worse than them. I
>think the same way when talking to people about driving.

Again, there are so few cyclists that it really has no effect. Have you
ever heard any drivers say anything nice about a cyclists? "he was so nice
to pull over and let me go by; he did a great job of signalling a turn" Not
likely. They will only remember the bad behavior, even if it only happened
to them once in their lifetime.

>> So we all know who has to take the brunt of the suggestion to be
>>courteous, now, don't we? ;-)
>
>In the political parlance: an asymmetric threat?? ;-)

Well in the case of motorists, huge threat to themselves, bikers and
pedestrians without even trying, and in most cases completely unaware of
that fact - else why would anyone yak on a cell phone or fish for cassette
tapes on the floor of the passenger side while driving?

-B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
'...a honk and a wave!...'
Replies
7
Views
519
Road Cycling
Bob
B
S
Recovered from accident, bicyclist and his wife to ride acrosscountry
Replies
0
Views
435
Road Cycling
SJ Carter
S
S
Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
Replies
429
Views
8K
Road Cycling
Matthew T. Russotto
M
D
taking out a tree hugger, bicyclist, Frenchman and gay in one shot
Replies
1
Views
429
Road Cycling
Jym Dyer
J
J
Bicyclist falls victim to a RAV
Replies
13
Views
298
Road Cycling
Jorg Lueke
J
Top Bottom Back