3 ms·

A misconception, aided by separate infrastructure, and even seemingly innocuous things like "sharrows" is that cycling in regular traffic lanes is wrong/illegal

by cmurf 10y ago

A misconception, aided by separate infrastructure, and even seemingly innocuous things like "sharrows" is that cycling in regular traffic lanes is wrong/illegal/whatever, let alone taking the entire lane. There's widespread ignorance about bicycles being vehicles, and their operator being a driver with the same rights and responsibilities as a car. In the very rare altercation I have had with car drivers, it's really scary, as in life threatening. I'm not treated like a slow car but like I'm in the wrong place. And these are tertiary streets, not major strees where it's still legal for me to take a lane just probably rather imprudent. Pretty much being passed by too closely means you should be taking a lane. Sharing a lane implies room for a car, plus about 4 feet (1 foot for the cyclist, 3 feet in between car and cyclist), and that's from the door zone border. At least as much as close encounters are speeders. In a car, I don't really car if people go much faster than me or the speed limit. When I'm on a bike in a 25mph zone and people are doing 35+ I get nervous and rather super pissy. It makes it much, much more difficult to change lanes when people aren't sharing via speeding like this. If the resources were available to totally separate cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, that'd be great but the reality is we have to share.

alistairSH 10y ago
I always wonder why drivers can't/won't treat me as they would a tractor. Nope, instead I'm treated like some sort of deviant who doesn't belong. And it's not just roads. There are several popular multi-use trails in my area, and intersections aren't any better - cars block crossings, don't yield, and generally act like assholes. Much of passing too close in done on purpose (along with an engine rev and sometimes some choice words). Taking a lane isn't going to fix that. Education, and penalties, might.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  It's because they're surrounded by tons of armor. Until drivers are as scared of cyclists and pedestriansas as they are of big rigs and dump trucks this will continue. For example I and about six other pedestrians were legally crossing at a crosswalk, and a driver decides to make a right turn through us, they then got their vehicle banged on and shouted at by several pissed off people. The driver look genuinely terrified. Since then if I see a non-motorized street user in an argument with a driver I'll try to join (assuming I saw that there was an actual transgression).
  - cmurf 10y ago
    My indoctrination to properly yielding to cyclists, before I was one, was being yelled at. But this wasn't just irate yelling. It was Boulder, CO, where it came with a somewhat detailed explanation. The behavior changed due to the explanation, the yelling merely got my attention. Every angry driver I've experienced in this car vs bike debate has not merely been ignorant of the law, they think they know they law but haven't though their version through well enough to realize how totally unworkable it'd be if it were true. So it's a conversation, to increase the number of better informed drivers. This job should be the state's since they license drivers, ostensibly they should know the rules or fail the test. But politics being a factor, you're probably right. In the U.S. maybe cyclists should join the NRA en masse, buy guns, and start using them to shoot out tires when threatened. Oh yes, this is surely illegal self defense, but then, the car also was being used illegally to target a much smaller vehicle and its rider. Tit for tat. But somehow I keep wanting to think the U.S. can be more civilized than regression back to wild west era. Stealing or killing a man's horse would get you shot back then, and the sheriff wouldn't have anything much to say about the matter. My bicycle is kinda like my horse. But I really don't want to carry a gun when I'm biking, if that's what it comes down to, I think I give up riding in the streets. I'd estimate my near misses, bike vs car, are 1 in 1000. It's really small. Smaller than when I'm in a car, and it's car vs car. I've only had one driver intentionally try to drive me off the road while yelling that bikes belong on the sidewalk (illegal in Denver) not in the street (a legal right). I think he might have behaved differently if his world view weren't so totally backwards.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      Unfortunately, the driver was right (from a physics standpoint), if incorrect from a legal stance. Bicycles are much closer to pedestrians in terms of protection and kinetic energy than cars in every conceivable measure, so ideally they belong on the sidewalks which can accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Or on separate bike lanes. Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any biking infrastructure, so the legislators decided to dump cyclists on the road with the motorists, which is the easy (and stupid) way out.
      - 10y ago

by cmurf 10y ago

alistairSH 10y ago

I always wonder why drivers can't/won't treat me as they would a tractor. Nope, instead I'm treated like some sort of deviant who doesn't belong. And it's not just roads. There are several popular multi-use trails in my area, and intersections aren't any better - cars block crossings, don't yield, and generally act like assholes. Much of passing too close in done on purpose (along with an engine rev and sometimes some choice words). Taking a lane isn't going to fix that. Education, and penalties, might.

jdavis703 10y ago
It's because they're surrounded by tons of armor. Until drivers are as scared of cyclists and pedestriansas as they are of big rigs and dump trucks this will continue. For example I and about six other pedestrians were legally crossing at a crosswalk, and a driver decides to make a right turn through us, they then got their vehicle banged on and shouted at by several pissed off people. The driver look genuinely terrified. Since then if I see a non-motorized street user in an argument with a driver I'll try to join (assuming I saw that there was an actual transgression).
- cmurf 10y ago
  My indoctrination to properly yielding to cyclists, before I was one, was being yelled at. But this wasn't just irate yelling. It was Boulder, CO, where it came with a somewhat detailed explanation. The behavior changed due to the explanation, the yelling merely got my attention. Every angry driver I've experienced in this car vs bike debate has not merely been ignorant of the law, they think they know they law but haven't though their version through well enough to realize how totally unworkable it'd be if it were true. So it's a conversation, to increase the number of better informed drivers. This job should be the state's since they license drivers, ostensibly they should know the rules or fail the test. But politics being a factor, you're probably right. In the U.S. maybe cyclists should join the NRA en masse, buy guns, and start using them to shoot out tires when threatened. Oh yes, this is surely illegal self defense, but then, the car also was being used illegally to target a much smaller vehicle and its rider. Tit for tat. But somehow I keep wanting to think the U.S. can be more civilized than regression back to wild west era. Stealing or killing a man's horse would get you shot back then, and the sheriff wouldn't have anything much to say about the matter. My bicycle is kinda like my horse. But I really don't want to carry a gun when I'm biking, if that's what it comes down to, I think I give up riding in the streets. I'd estimate my near misses, bike vs car, are 1 in 1000. It's really small. Smaller than when I'm in a car, and it's car vs car. I've only had one driver intentionally try to drive me off the road while yelling that bikes belong on the sidewalk (illegal in Denver) not in the street (a legal right). I think he might have behaved differently if his world view weren't so totally backwards.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    Unfortunately, the driver was right (from a physics standpoint), if incorrect from a legal stance. Bicycles are much closer to pedestrians in terms of protection and kinetic energy than cars in every conceivable measure, so ideally they belong on the sidewalks which can accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Or on separate bike lanes. Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any biking infrastructure, so the legislators decided to dump cyclists on the road with the motorists, which is the easy (and stupid) way out.
    - 10y ago