When to honk at a bicyclist



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 11:28:17 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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."


Hahaha. Good one.

-B
"They came out of nowhere!"
 
Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.


And how many drivers view cyclists as idiots due to your need to
"assert dominance?"

I simply asked you a question a while back regarding your claim of
"being run over" (to which I apologised) and now you think you have me
pegged as a troll and car lover. Get real. I'm neither. I'm just
looking at things in a rational manner instead of a being a ******
off, emotionally charged hot-head like yourself. Seems that every ride
you take is a constant battle of you-vs-them. Go ahead and keep it up.
Your posting and riding days will soon be over due to your stubborn
stupidity.
 
18 Oct 2004 13:40:30 -0700,
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
(R.White) wrote:

> Get real. I'm neither. I'm just
>looking at things in a rational manner instead of a being a ******
>off, emotionally charged hot-head like yourself. Seems that every ride
>you take is a constant battle of you-vs-them. Go ahead and keep it up.
>Your posting and riding days will soon be over due to your stubborn
>stupidity.


Get real yourself.
You're infected with a totally irrational fear that some lunatic is
going to assault you with their scud because I'd scared them by
"popping out of nowhere" or taking the lane when the situation
warranted that. Worse still is you're spreading your infection with
the retelling of a myth. Where'd this story come from that you're so
willing believe it and repeat it?

Have you ever been victim to a raging cager ****** off at me or are
you just looking for a scapegoat?
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.


You are proving my point each time you refer to drivers as
"murderous" or "caged fluffies" and "twisted sickos". You have
an attitude towards vehicle drivers that is the same as some of
them have towards cyclists. Both attitudes based on the actions
of a few. Your perception follows the same logic as the driver
who sees all cyclist as "lycra wearing faggots" or "arrogant assholes."
They are out there. You know it as well as I do and you know they
feel that way because of the actions of a few. Those few affect
most of us eventually.

> 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.


Get real moron, no one would confess to that sort of behaviour when
it would result in a greater penalty to be paid. Even people caught
red-handed will lie and say they are innocent. Here's a clue,
O.J. really did kill Nichole.

Read the threads that have been posted in the past. Try
"Bike-Hating Drivers"
"Bicycling Is For Morons" "What [sic} Are Bikers Such Morons"
"<Imbeciles> <was> Is it just me, or were these cyclists rude?"
"Yet ANOTHER Anti-cycling Editorial" "Observations on other Cyclists"
"critical mass - good or bad? You decide."

> You're nuts to propagate such a bizarre story.


You're nuts to think it never happens.

> Sure, plenty of you caged fluffies are worthless twisted sickos but
> not many of you are really homicidal flippers.


Catchy phrases like "your poor persecuted scud slaves" and "plenty
of you caged fluffies" just reinforce my piont that YOU are the
same as THEM.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.


You are describing YOUR own behaviour but are to blinded by
your rage against cars to even see it. Classic!
 
18 Oct 2004 16:46:39 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

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


I'm insisting that you prove to me how you're directly affected.
Otherwise, you're making up boogie man stories.
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 18 Oct 2004 13:40:30 -0700,
> <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (R.White) wrote:
>
> > Get real. I'm neither. I'm just
> >looking at things in a rational manner instead of a being a ******
> >off, emotionally charged hot-head like yourself. Seems that every ride
> >you take is a constant battle of you-vs-them. Go ahead and keep it up.
> >Your posting and riding days will soon be over due to your stubborn
> >stupidity.

>
> Get real yourself.
> You're infected with a totally irrational fear that some lunatic is
> going to assault you with their scud because I'd scared them by
> "popping out of nowhere" or taking the lane when the situation
> warranted that.


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


>Worse still is you're spreading your infection with
> the retelling of a myth. Where'd this story come from that you're so
> willing believe it and repeat it?


No more than you cannot prove it. Joe blow is riding down the street
on the shoulder when out of nowhere a beer bottle smashes into the
back of his head, thrown by some bubba who had been held up in traffic
a few days earlier by some selfish, Critical Mass moron. You don't
want to believe this can or has happened because in either case, you
are the selfish moron who had something to prove.


> Have you ever been victim to a raging cager ****** off at me or are
> you just looking for a scapegoat?


I'll bet some poor cyclist has.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 18 Oct 2004 16:46:39 -0700,
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) wrote:
>
> >You know it as well as I do and you know they
> >feel that way because of the actions of a few. Those few affect
> >most of us eventually.

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


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

Just keep riding the way you have been if you feel you are giving all
cyclist a good name. We all thank you.
 
19 Oct 2004 13:32:34 -0700,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

You don't know how I ride, so STFU.
--
zk
 
19 Oct 2004 13:36:06 -0700,
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
(R.White) wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

So, take responsiblity for your own actions and quit looking for a
scapegoat, whiner.
--
zk
 
After asking for a single example . . . "Zoot Katz" raved thusly:

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


Daley Ranch, Escondido (San Diego County), California -- about six
months ago.

Three of us on mountain bikes, just toodling through at reasonable
pace on a double-track. Approaching us were four people on horseback.
Respectfully, we pulled to the far right of the trail and slowed to
about 5mph. The lead rider charged my friend, yelling "I'm sick of
you bikers. I'm gonna' ride this horse right up your @ss" and--true
to his word--begins to charge my friend's bike with the horse.

We'd never seen this person before. His actions were inexplicable.
Totally confused, we took off as quickly as we could.

About an hour later, we crested a hill only to see the same yahoo and
his posse. Said yahoo--about eight feet away now--again started
screaming at us, threatening bodily harm, and lunged his horse at my
bike and me. I hopped off my bike and dashed away, asking him what
his problem was. Fortunately, he provided copious detail: "I'm sick
of you rude f***ing mountain bikers."

Ok, Zoot. Easy enough for you to say that his actions had _nothing_
to do with any prior encounter with a discourteous cyclist, but I'm
willing to take him at his word that somebody didn't follow simple
rules of courtesy and that he was taking it out on us.

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

Again, _no_ downside to operating (horses, bikes, and cars)
courteously.
 
In article <t%[email protected]>,
"neil0502" <[email protected]> writes:

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


Actually, there can be. Traffic flows best when everybody
sticks to the program and does what's normally expected of
them. So many times I've had cross-traffic drivers
'courteously' try to give me a break - when I've got the
stop sign, and they're holding up a line of car traffic
behind them (maybe that's a variation on what Jobst calls
'the contrived hinderance'.) Sometimes courtesy just
screws things up. We just need people to do what they're
s'posed ta, while we take care of our ends.

To put it another way, it's more 'courteous' when people
don't unnecessarily and incorrectly cede their ROW.

If some drivers get angry because cyclists don't cede
their R'sOW on demand, tough tittie.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:44:05 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <t%[email protected]>,
> "neil0502" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Again, _no_ downside to operating (horses, bikes, and cars)
>> courteously.

>
>Actually, there can be. Traffic flows best when everybody
>sticks to the program and does what's normally expected of
>them. So many times I've had cross-traffic drivers
>'courteously' try to give me a break - when I've got the
>stop sign, and they're holding up a line of car traffic
>behind them (maybe that's a variation on what Jobst calls
>'the contrived hinderance'.) Sometimes courtesy just
>screws things up. We just need people to do what they're
>s'posed ta, while we take care of our ends.
>
>To put it another way, it's more 'courteous' when people
>don't unnecessarily and incorrectly cede their ROW.
>
>If some drivers get angry because cyclists don't cede
>their R'sOW on demand, tough tittie.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom


Very good point. Overly polite drivers are a pain. Moreso when I'm
driving than biking. I hate being at a stop sign and the other guy
starts waving for me to go.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
dgk <[email protected]> writes:

> Very good point. Overly polite drivers are a pain. Moreso when I'm
> driving than biking. I hate being at a stop sign and the other guy
> starts waving for me to go.


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

I get to see lots of fellow riders every day, and I rarely see
any deliberate discourtesy on their parts. There's the
occasional wrong way rider, or those with red blinkies on
the fronts of their bikes, but I put that down to blithe
ignorance rather than malevolence. We've all heard complaints
of cyclists suicidally barging through red lights across
6 or 8 lines of heavy traffic filled with cement trucks and
buses, but I've never seen it actually happen. If anyone tried
to, in situations as so many people describe, they wouldn't
make it across to the other side. Cyclists simply can't afford
to be deliberately discourteous, and I think complaints about
discourteous cyclists are generally overblown.

The post that spawned this whole subthread describes how 4
riders (briefly?) hogged 2 lanes of road until the leftmost 2
relinquished the passing lane. Okay, maybe that /was/
discourteous. Or maybe they just assumed there wasn't any
other traffic around and were startled when they discovered there
was a car coming up behind them. I suppose the case could be
made that inattentiveness is discourtesy. At any rate, the
poster/driver was able to pass them, and planet earth is still
rotating on its axis as per usual.

As for courtesy: sure, courtesy is fine when road/street users
can be individuals not affecting other traffic. But in the
long run I figure there are no individuals in traffic (except
emergency response vehicles en-route to calls.) So my approach
is to do what I can & should to keep the whole traffic (including
myself) flowing, rather than cherry-picking individuals on whom
to bestow random acts of kindness. Traffic just isn't the place
for such unpredictable behaviour, and it often turns out that
such kindness given to one is at the expense of others. Better
to just unbegrudgingly give what we must, and unselfishly take
what we need -- including the lane, when needs be.


cheers,
Tom

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

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


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

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


[snip]

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


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

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


BINGO!

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


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

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


I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this
context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to have
been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at the
least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move over as
quickly as possible. IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an
awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil fuel
guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the road
with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a ways
off.
 
neil0502 wrote:

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


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

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


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

Wayne
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"neil0502" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Tom Keats" wrote
>
>> To be fair, I should mention that I draw a distinction between
>> being courteous (going above & beyond what's required to keep
>> the traffic flowing), and not being discourteous (just smoothly
>> going with the flow).

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

[snip]

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


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

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


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


cheers,
Tom

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

> > neil0502 wrote:


> > I'm certainly not advocating "random acts of kindness" in this
> > context. Again, courtesy--in the context of the OP--is likely to

have
> > been /not/ taking the lane when the need did /not/ exist, or--at

the
> > least--being very aware of an approaching car in order to move

over as
> > quickly as possible.


> Bicyclists do not and should not have to worry about causing

overtaking
> motorists to have to slow down, whether there is a "need" to
> purposefully do so or not. And there is no need to be aware of
> approaching motor vehicles. All the bicyclist must do is be

predictable
> and hold a consistent line. In other words, one can be deaf and

still
> drive a bike, as one can be deaf and drive a motor vehicle. The

burden
> of overtaking is on the overtaker.


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

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

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

> > IOW, I'm using 'courtesy' to describe an
> > awareness, as cyclists, that we are sharing the road with fossil

fuel
> > guzzlers, and an awareness, as motorists, that we are sharing the

road
> > with cyclists. Sounds contrite . . . but I'd say we're quite a

ways
> > off.


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


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

Sorry . . . it's /raining buckets/ in San Diego . . . and a thread
like this could amuse me for hours ;-)
 
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:45:03 GMT,
<[email protected]>,
"neil0502" <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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

Similar threads

H
Replies
7
Views
501
B