5 ms·

Why cyclists enrage car drivers

35 points by gnosis 14y ago

rheide 14y ago
Interesting Twitter example. Let's put it in reverse: if 90% of the population was riding bicycles there'd be a lot of angry tweets about cars.
- mnicole 14y ago
  It's a silly/dumb way to try to calculate it at all; the people making those tweets had the ability to do so [potentially recklessly] while still behind the wheel and as soon as it happened as opposed to the cyclist that had to get to his destination first (and possibly rode the rage off).
- gensym 14y ago
  If 90% of the population was riding bicycles, several of my friends would still be alive. Also, poor kids would do better in school due to lower asthma rates. Also, our municipalities would be far more solvent. The real puzzle is why there aren't currently more angry tweets about cars.
CapitalistCartr 14y ago
The author is generalizing about people in general without any basis to do so. As usual, the plural of anecdote isn't data. I find driving is the most revealing activity. It is a window into the driver's personality like no other. This article says much about the author. And that's all it says. " . . . my theory is that motorists hate cyclists because they offend the moral order. Driving is a very moral activity – there are rules of the road, both legal and informal, and there are good and bad drivers."
steveklabnik 14y ago
As an experienced cyclist, cars don't follow the rules of the road either. The last time I got hit by a car on my bicycle, it was because they didn't use a turn signal and made a quick right-hand turn without looking.
rvkennedy 14y ago
Actually it's because so many cyclists break the rules that do apply to them: running red lights, cycling on the pavement (sidewalk), and so on. And this is why pedestrians often feel the same animosity towards cyclists that drivers do.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  I disagree. It's much more complicated than that. Virtually every single car on the road breaks a giant number of laws every day. I walk/metro/bus to work, and I see an average of 20-50 law-breaking drivers every day. Drivers aren't hating cyclists because one group breaks the rules, as if the other doesn't.
- beatboxrevival 14y ago
  You do understand that most drivers also break those same rules. With any means of transportation people will take the shortcut to go faster. It's also significantly more difficult for a cyclist to come to a full stop than a driver.
- pc86 14y ago
  The sidewalk thing varies by municipality (at least in my state), but I get your point.
- derleth 14y ago
  > cycling on the pavement (sidewalk) At speed. Don't forget how fast they buzz along now that they don't have cars to worry about, and how quietly they move. I greatly prefer skateboarders. Even if they move at a good clip, they're clattering along and giving everyone plenty of advance warning. Bikes just barely make any sound at all until they're nearly on top of you.
- Falling3 14y ago
  This is absolutely the biggest issue for me. Another commentor pointed out this can't be the issue because drivers do the same thing. The actually problem isn't that cyclists break laws. It's that they break them doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things that I don't/can't expect. I know most of the stupid things other drivers are going to do. Cars are easily visible and I can usually see stupid maneuvers coming. I've had several close calls with cyclists. A common scary scenario is when they are driving against traffic on the sidewalk when there are serious visual obstructions. That's what makes me the angriest.
mullingitover 14y ago
This seems to be overthinking things. I'm both a driver and a cyclist, and I still find myself enraged at cyclists when I drive. There's a simple reason: cyclists slow you down. Drivers loathe anything that slows them down. Cyclists, pedestrians, horse carriages, even other cars. It's nothing to do with the moral order, it's "Get the hell out of my way!"
- pnathan 14y ago
  Well, the problem for me is this: the cyclist is in my lane. I have to swerve dangerously into the other lane to avoid hitting them. I do not want to hit them. Either I slow down to 15 mph or I commit dangerous driving. Neither option is really good. If there is a bike lane and they are using it, yay. I am happy. If there is a bike lane and they aren't using it (instead being in my lane), I am pretty torqued.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Take it up with your legislature. In the states I've lived, bikes == cars with a few extra restrictions, so they're just following the law.
  - iyulaev 14y ago
    Either I slow down to 15 mph or I commit dangerous driving. Tough call, considering the average speed on surface streets in most towns/cities is about 20mph or less.
    - zecho 14y ago
      Yeah, this drives me nuts. I can easily pace 20-23mph on a bicycle for quite some time in a 25mph speed zone. The problem is most of the vehicles on that road are traveling 40.
      - iyulaev 14y ago
        It's sillier than that. Note that I said the average speed is 20mph or less; that's not the speed limit, that's the real-world speed a car will see. So they pass you, just to have you catch up to them or pass them at the next light.
chris-allnutt 14y ago
People allowed to themselves to be annoyed, and I often find that rage towards cyclist is based on impatience. People get enraged in the same way behind a slow driver. It's hard to both pass a cyclist safely and be 100% sure you will be safe as well. Its the same anxiety people get when passing on a broken yellow line, only with the cyclist you're usually forced into that zone of discomfort rather than choosing it.
chrismealy 14y ago
Oh this is bullshit. Anybody who gets mad because they have to move their foot two inches off the pedal while sitting on a padded chair inside of 4000 pounds of metal is just an asshole.
- sp332 14y ago
  If I just had to move my foot it wouldn't be a problem. But now I'm responsible for maneuvering a ton or more of metal down a road without killing anyone, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make that more difficult than it already is.
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  Well, there you go. The bloated sense of self-entitlement and inbred animosity towards car drivers, who are all assholes - if that's not a start of a beautiful friendship, what else is.
  - yannk 14y ago
    animosity toward drivers getting mad, maybe? @chrismealy never said all drivers were assholes. troll.
orthecreedence 14y ago
When I'm driving, I'm more than fine with cyclists who stop at stop signs, use hand signals to show their intentions, don't swerve around wildly in and out of my lane, etc. The conscientious ones will, if they have to go into your lane (for instance if the bike lane is blocked), signal and merge, speed up as fast as they can so as not to slow down traffic more than needed, then get out of the lane as soon as they're done passing. I think this is more than fair if you're sharing the road with cars. However, a lot of cyclist do do infuriating, selfish things. From what I've generalized over time, they are either the inexperienced ones who don't really think about what's going on around them, are too fearful of the others on the road to make logical/informed decisions, or they are dipsticks on fixies who break all the rules because it's just too hard to stop or because they are just so hip the rules don't apply. I don't think there's some deeper meaning behind it all, I think that some cyclists are courteous and skillful when sharing the road, but many of them don't really know what they're doing or think that the world owes them something because what kind of asshole drives a car anyway?!?! It's the latter ones that ruin it for everyone.
- awakeasleep 14y ago
  Would you be angry at a cyclist who rode in front of your car, taking the full lane, at a speed significantly below the speed limit, on a busy two lane road?
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    I have been yelled at by a motorist in that situation before. Of course, they only had time to roll down their window because they flew past, honking, and then hit the red light at the end of the block, so we both had to stop and wait.
  - orthecreedence 14y ago
    No, I wouldn't. I'd wait for a chance to pass then pass. The situation has happened to me many times, and you know what? I just don't care. I never have to be somewhere so ridiculously fucking fast that anyone who dares slowing me down needs to be screamed at. I think most people forget: your life is not so important that you need to rush everywhere. If someone's about to have a baby or something, a friendly honk to get someone slow out of the way can be useful. The problem is that too many people think what they are doing is soooo important that they need to honk and scream at anything that gets in their way. Too many people are in a rush to get somewhere they don't want to be. What's the point?
chrismealy 14y ago
BTW, Ernst Fehr is a terrific researcher, so please nobody hold this dumb article against him.
jplur 14y ago
Once I saw a cyclist with the NYC city cycling laws silk screened onto her backpack, I was surprised to find out some of the rights I had, but am not going to start riding like a full sized vehicle just to exercise them.
alexkus 14y ago
Nothing incites vitriol from opposing camps than a good 'Cyclists vs Cars' debate. "The only winning move is not to play."
xradionut 14y ago
The article mentions "free riders". As a motorist who's auto and gasoline taxes pay for the roads, has an annual auto inspection, it's mildly annoying to be trapped behind a slower cyclist who's not subject to those requirements. It becomes enraging when they break traffic laws and stage mass rides just to fuck with drivers.
- iyulaev 14y ago
  If you think that that auto registration and gas tax covers all of the costs of road ways, you're sadly mistaken.
  - xradionut 14y ago
    I forgot that I had a toll tag too! :)
- xuhu 14y ago
  That cyclist means one more free parking spot for you, and one less source of pollution though.
  - xradionut 14y ago
    Not in my area. In the large urban-surban-exurban spawl areas in the US, cycling is not a practical method of commuting for the majority of workers. Correction: Telecommuting means, one more spot, less pollution and one less annoying cyclist/motorist on the road. :)
- ak217 14y ago
  Cyclists usually make use of less congested, slower moving roads, which are funded by local taxes, not federal and state taxes. As far as I know, most local transportation taxes are contributed as regular taxes, not as use taxes, so bicyclists pay their share. Also, not all state and federal transportation funding is paid by motorists, either. Bicycles put negligible wear and tear on the road, and a bicycle malfunction is unlikely to harm anyone but the cyclist, or to poison the air. The bigger issue with your comment is just how entitled the attitude behind it is. Car driving is an incredibly privileged activity on many levels in the US. Cars are subsidized on every level from manufacturing to international policy to transportation planning policy on every scale. Car right-of-ways take priority almost always, almost everywhere (with good reason much of the time, but explain that to a kid trying to get around town without a car and having to cross a 10-lane freeway on an 8-lane road with 45 mph traffic to get from home to school, a common occurrence where I live). So the next time you become enraged by a cyclist messing with your right to go fast, why don't you go ask your city council to fund more bike overpasses and dedicated bike lanes in your community? They're an incredibly cheap, great investment that doubles as recreational park land. And if your city has no room for bike lanes, think again about the car-centric planning policy that got you where you are.
knowaveragejoe 14y ago
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem for me. I'd love to bike, but I don't because there isn't enough adoption of biking, and therefore widespread respect of bikers(as difficult as they can make that sometimes). Even in DC where I live it's like this, which says a lot considering DC is one of the more bike-friendly cities in the country.
iyulaev 14y ago
Weak article. I expected a statement about cyclists being dangerous to themselves and others, but instead it's about how cyclists can do things cars can't and car drivers are upset about it. Boo hoo. The reason bikes often take the lane (or at least should) is safety. Rear endings are very uncommon amongst bicycle accidents. Much more common are cars turning across a bicyclist's right-of-way, either a left turn from the opposite direction or a right hook. Taking the lane increases visibility and makes these accidents less likely. We're weighing inconvenience (or maybe, as the article points out, moral insult) against safety and it should be obvious which is more important.
splitrocket 14y ago
How the Dutch got their bike paths: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-dutch-got-their-bike-paths http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-du...
owenjones 14y ago
As a cyclist who prides himself on being calm and restrained, I'm always upset whenever I read (literally) any article about cyclists and drivers on the internet. In Philadelphia there has been a lot of tension between the groups and several local news websites have a serious anti-bike bias both in their articles and in their comments. Wishes to ram bicyclists off the road are commonly expressed, and every sweeping generalization is backed up by some anecdotal evidence. MOST of my friends have been hit-and-run by cars at this point (injuries up to a broken arm) and we're not bike punks or teenagers or activists just adults trying to get to work. Look at the comments in this article too: "a lot of cyclist do do infuriating, selfish things", "I still find myself enraged at cyclists when I drive", "Get the hell out of my way!", "It becomes enraging when they break traffic laws" It seems most people behind the wheel of a car, or even bike, become ENRAGED the second they have to tap the breaks a little. People need to relax and see the injurable PEOPLE operating the vehicles around them. Sadly I don't think this article gets to the deeper issue.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Over on the other side of the state, we actually had a situation where a motorist stabbed a cyclist repeatedly and slit their throat: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-police-search-for-south-side-bicyclists-attacker-652179/ http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city...
munin 14y ago
when I'm a pedestrian, I get angry at cyclists because the zip past me on the sidewalk going 10-20 miles an hour. what happens when you run into someone at that speed? why don't you think about other people? when I'm a motorist, I get angry at cyclists when they put me in danger. driving at night on country roads can be tricky, and sitting behind a cyclist who is going 8-10mph on a 45mph road puts me in danger to other cars who could rear-end me. why do I have to put myself in this danger for your hobby?
- zecho 14y ago
  I doubt that you're the one in danger when you're driving.
macey 14y ago
I'd say that no small part of the rage comes from fear. If I'm driving next to a cyclist that breaks the rules, I have to immediately become hypervigilant and pay a disproprortionate amount of attention to this cyclist and their behavior. It's my responsibility to pay that attention, though, because if I don't, I'm risking seriously injuring or even killing that person. Humans on wheels are extremely vulnerable. Frankly, a lot of cyclist behavior I see when I'm driving involves a pretty low level of vigilance - it certainly doesn't scale with the amount of danger they're facing. I don't mean to sound overdramatic here, but if I break a driving rule like forgetting to signal, and I get rear-ended, that sucks balls for me, but there was virtually no chance of me being killed (or killing somebody), assuming a city environment. Regardless of legal implications, nobody wants that on their hands, and it's easy to see how worrying about it would get anybody heated.
malbs 14y ago
Australian Cyclist here. Firstly, if I could ride to/from work without riding on roads, I would. I don't feel safe riding on the road. I don't like riding on the road, but I do it because where I live there is no other option. I have travelled to Canberra and I'm incredibly jealous of their cycling infrastructure. Secondly, roads are paid for by fuel tax, so yes, I'm getting a free ride because my bike doesn't consume fossil fuels, only weetbix. I do own a car however, and do spend over $100aud per week on fuel (kids taxi service). So I do contribute to the infrastructure costs. I guess I mostly agree with what the article suggests, hell, when I'm riding and another bloke on a bike rides through a red light, I think "you shouldn't be on the roads if you're unwilling to follow the road rules", it even makes me irritated. There are a vast number of cyclists who don't know the actual road rules when it comes to cycling. I thought I did until I sat down with the rule handbook and read the cycling section from start to finish, and realised I commonly broke a number of rules. Riders who insist on cycling in the middle of the lane - irritating. I realise a cyclist needs to keep enough space for themselves, and riding right next to parked cars is scary as hell due to the fear of someone opening a car door on you (it's not pretty), but if I'm ever holding up traffic, I just pull over and wait for the cars to clear. The worst thing you could experience is having someone in a car sitting on your shoulder, so close you can feel the heat from the engine. I've been attacked while on my bike a number of times. The most common reason that I seem to get attacked for is filtering. That is, moving up between lanes at a red light, to the front of the queue, so to the folks in cars I guess I'm a queue jumper. I've had people drive past me in their car and have a passenger open their door into me (yes while we were both moving) - the police planned to charge that guy with attempted murder, but he was driving a car with stolen license plate. However, the more I get attacked, the more I want to break the rules, how ironic! The worst are pedestrians though, they just walk out in front of you.
null_ptr 14y ago
I don't understand why bicycles are allowed to drive on roads alongside cars. It is such an obvious hazard for the bikers. Fender benders happen all the time, but what happens when one person is behind the wheel of a mamoth SUV and the other is on a bicycle? It's horrific to think about. Joggers aren't allowed to run on roads, why are bikers?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  First of all, because it's the law. It's the law because, as dangerous as roads usually are, it's better for everyone if cyclists are on the road. If cyclists are on the sidewalk, it's similar to the way that cars are to bikes: much faster, larger, and more dangerous. And pedestrians don't have anywhere else to go, so putting bikes there doesn't make a ton of sense. If cyclists are on the road, there's already an entire set of rules for how vehicles are supposed to operate and interact. And cyclists aren't allowed on roads where it's _truly_ dangerous for them, like expressways.
davekinkead 14y ago
I'd argue that the author got the description right while getting the reason wrong. First up a confession. I'm a cycling tragic who'd like nothing more to see the vast majority of urban transportation space allocated to walking, cycling and PT. But cyclists do upset the 'moral order of the road'. The speed differential between car & bike is significant which causes cyclists to disrupt traffic flow. Many cyclists don't conform to road rules (I treat stop signs as give way/yields all the time). Cyclists can easily navigate through gridlock that leaves motorists fuming in rage, and they do so with a smile on their face because lets face it, its very hard to arrive anywhere bummed if you got there via a relaxing ride. The moral order of the road, like most things in life, is reciprocity. If I'm stuck in traffic, then everyone should be. If I have to follow these rules, then everyone should. When people don't do these things, we get angry because it just isn't fair. But what the author misses completely is why the order exists in the first place and why cyclists (often) think they can be excused from this order. The moral order on the footpath/sidewalk/mall is completely different to the road. Watching people walk through a crowd is like looking at ants. Chaos. But ordered chaos. There are no formal rules (until one steps on the road that is) but people manage just fine thanks to common sense, social convention and lack of speed differential. Before the car, this is exactly what our roads used to be like. Cyclists (mostly) realise that road rules were created with little regard for them. Hence they don't feel the same degree of reciprocity that motorists do (who typically don't realise road rules have little regard for the needs of cyclists). Hence animosity between two groups who have very different conceptions of fairness. If cyclists had dedicated space however, or if road rules gave equal concern to all users, then I think the animosity would be much less. Just look at the animosity (or lack of) between motorists and PT users. Motorists can see a trade off (crowded buses, no door-to-door service) for any dedicated road space/transit lanes they may receive, hence exceptions to the 'moral order' of the road are deemed fair. Cyclist typically don't experience that trade off because cycling as a form of transport is, well, simply the efficient and awesome to get around urban environments. The animosity then, stems from a faulty sense of reciprocity or fairness. Cyclists think they have exemptions to some motoring rules but don't seem to pay any extra costs. What motorists typically fail to realise however, is that those costs are a function of their transport choice - they get stuck in traffic simply because they are the traffic.

35 points by gnosis 14y ago

Interesting Twitter example. Let's put it in reverse: if 90% of the population was riding bicycles there'd be a lot of angry tweets about cars.

mnicole 14y ago
It's a silly/dumb way to try to calculate it at all; the people making those tweets had the ability to do so [potentially recklessly] while still behind the wheel and as soon as it happened as opposed to the cyclist that had to get to his destination first (and possibly rode the rage off).
gensym 14y ago
If 90% of the population was riding bicycles, several of my friends would still be alive. Also, poor kids would do better in school due to lower asthma rates. Also, our municipalities would be far more solvent. The real puzzle is why there aren't currently more angry tweets about cars.

CapitalistCartr 14y ago

The author is generalizing about people in general without any basis to do so. As usual, the plural of anecdote isn't data. I find driving is the most revealing activity. It is a window into the driver's personality like no other. This article says much about the author. And that's all it says. " . . . my theory is that motorists hate cyclists because they offend the moral order. Driving is a very moral activity – there are rules of the road, both legal and informal, and there are good and bad drivers."

steveklabnik 14y ago

As an experienced cyclist, cars don't follow the rules of the road either. The last time I got hit by a car on my bicycle, it was because they didn't use a turn signal and made a quick right-hand turn without looking.

rvkennedy 14y ago

Actually it's because so many cyclists break the rules that do apply to them: running red lights, cycling on the pavement (sidewalk), and so on. And this is why pedestrians often feel the same animosity towards cyclists that drivers do.

cryptoz 14y ago
I disagree. It's much more complicated than that. Virtually every single car on the road breaks a giant number of laws every day. I walk/metro/bus to work, and I see an average of 20-50 law-breaking drivers every day. Drivers aren't hating cyclists because one group breaks the rules, as if the other doesn't.
beatboxrevival 14y ago
You do understand that most drivers also break those same rules. With any means of transportation people will take the shortcut to go faster. It's also significantly more difficult for a cyclist to come to a full stop than a driver.
pc86 14y ago
The sidewalk thing varies by municipality (at least in my state), but I get your point.
derleth 14y ago
> cycling on the pavement (sidewalk) At speed. Don't forget how fast they buzz along now that they don't have cars to worry about, and how quietly they move. I greatly prefer skateboarders. Even if they move at a good clip, they're clattering along and giving everyone plenty of advance warning. Bikes just barely make any sound at all until they're nearly on top of you.
Falling3 14y ago
This is absolutely the biggest issue for me. Another commentor pointed out this can't be the issue because drivers do the same thing. The actually problem isn't that cyclists break laws. It's that they break them doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things that I don't/can't expect. I know most of the stupid things other drivers are going to do. Cars are easily visible and I can usually see stupid maneuvers coming. I've had several close calls with cyclists. A common scary scenario is when they are driving against traffic on the sidewalk when there are serious visual obstructions. That's what makes me the angriest.

mullingitover 14y ago

This seems to be overthinking things. I'm both a driver and a cyclist, and I still find myself enraged at cyclists when I drive. There's a simple reason: cyclists slow you down. Drivers loathe anything that slows them down. Cyclists, pedestrians, horse carriages, even other cars. It's nothing to do with the moral order, it's "Get the hell out of my way!"

pnathan 14y ago
Well, the problem for me is this: the cyclist is in my lane. I have to swerve dangerously into the other lane to avoid hitting them. I do not want to hit them. Either I slow down to 15 mph or I commit dangerous driving. Neither option is really good. If there is a bike lane and they are using it, yay. I am happy. If there is a bike lane and they aren't using it (instead being in my lane), I am pretty torqued.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Take it up with your legislature. In the states I've lived, bikes == cars with a few extra restrictions, so they're just following the law.
- iyulaev 14y ago
  Either I slow down to 15 mph or I commit dangerous driving. Tough call, considering the average speed on surface streets in most towns/cities is about 20mph or less.
  - zecho 14y ago
    Yeah, this drives me nuts. I can easily pace 20-23mph on a bicycle for quite some time in a 25mph speed zone. The problem is most of the vehicles on that road are traveling 40.
    - iyulaev 14y ago
      It's sillier than that. Note that I said the average speed is 20mph or less; that's not the speed limit, that's the real-world speed a car will see. So they pass you, just to have you catch up to them or pass them at the next light.

chris-allnutt 14y ago

People allowed to themselves to be annoyed, and I often find that rage towards cyclist is based on impatience. People get enraged in the same way behind a slow driver. It's hard to both pass a cyclist safely and be 100% sure you will be safe as well. Its the same anxiety people get when passing on a broken yellow line, only with the cyclist you're usually forced into that zone of discomfort rather than choosing it.

chrismealy 14y ago

Oh this is bullshit. Anybody who gets mad because they have to move their foot two inches off the pedal while sitting on a padded chair inside of 4000 pounds of metal is just an asshole.

sp332 14y ago
If I just had to move my foot it wouldn't be a problem. But now I'm responsible for maneuvering a ton or more of metal down a road without killing anyone, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make that more difficult than it already is.
huhtenberg 14y ago
Well, there you go. The bloated sense of self-entitlement and inbred animosity towards car drivers, who are all assholes - if that's not a start of a beautiful friendship, what else is.
- yannk 14y ago
  animosity toward drivers getting mad, maybe? @chrismealy never said all drivers were assholes. troll.

orthecreedence 14y ago

When I'm driving, I'm more than fine with cyclists who stop at stop signs, use hand signals to show their intentions, don't swerve around wildly in and out of my lane, etc. The conscientious ones will, if they have to go into your lane (for instance if the bike lane is blocked), signal and merge, speed up as fast as they can so as not to slow down traffic more than needed, then get out of the lane as soon as they're done passing. I think this is more than fair if you're sharing the road with cars. However, a lot of cyclist do do infuriating, selfish things. From what I've generalized over time, they are either the inexperienced ones who don't really think about what's going on around them, are too fearful of the others on the road to make logical/informed decisions, or they are dipsticks on fixies who break all the rules because it's just too hard to stop or because they are just so hip the rules don't apply. I don't think there's some deeper meaning behind it all, I think that some cyclists are courteous and skillful when sharing the road, but many of them don't really know what they're doing or think that the world owes them something because what kind of asshole drives a car anyway?!?! It's the latter ones that ruin it for everyone.

awakeasleep 14y ago
Would you be angry at a cyclist who rode in front of your car, taking the full lane, at a speed significantly below the speed limit, on a busy two lane road?
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  I have been yelled at by a motorist in that situation before. Of course, they only had time to roll down their window because they flew past, honking, and then hit the red light at the end of the block, so we both had to stop and wait.
- orthecreedence 14y ago
  No, I wouldn't. I'd wait for a chance to pass then pass. The situation has happened to me many times, and you know what? I just don't care. I never have to be somewhere so ridiculously fucking fast that anyone who dares slowing me down needs to be screamed at. I think most people forget: your life is not so important that you need to rush everywhere. If someone's about to have a baby or something, a friendly honk to get someone slow out of the way can be useful. The problem is that too many people think what they are doing is soooo important that they need to honk and scream at anything that gets in their way. Too many people are in a rush to get somewhere they don't want to be. What's the point?

chrismealy 14y ago

BTW, Ernst Fehr is a terrific researcher, so please nobody hold this dumb article against him.

jplur 14y ago

Once I saw a cyclist with the NYC city cycling laws silk screened onto her backpack, I was surprised to find out some of the rights I had, but am not going to start riding like a full sized vehicle just to exercise them.

alexkus 14y ago

Nothing incites vitriol from opposing camps than a good 'Cyclists vs Cars' debate. "The only winning move is not to play."

xradionut 14y ago

The article mentions "free riders". As a motorist who's auto and gasoline taxes pay for the roads, has an annual auto inspection, it's mildly annoying to be trapped behind a slower cyclist who's not subject to those requirements. It becomes enraging when they break traffic laws and stage mass rides just to fuck with drivers.

iyulaev 14y ago
If you think that that auto registration and gas tax covers all of the costs of road ways, you're sadly mistaken.
- xradionut 14y ago
  I forgot that I had a toll tag too! :)
xuhu 14y ago
That cyclist means one more free parking spot for you, and one less source of pollution though.
- xradionut 14y ago
  Not in my area. In the large urban-surban-exurban spawl areas in the US, cycling is not a practical method of commuting for the majority of workers. Correction: Telecommuting means, one more spot, less pollution and one less annoying cyclist/motorist on the road. :)
ak217 14y ago
Cyclists usually make use of less congested, slower moving roads, which are funded by local taxes, not federal and state taxes. As far as I know, most local transportation taxes are contributed as regular taxes, not as use taxes, so bicyclists pay their share. Also, not all state and federal transportation funding is paid by motorists, either. Bicycles put negligible wear and tear on the road, and a bicycle malfunction is unlikely to harm anyone but the cyclist, or to poison the air. The bigger issue with your comment is just how entitled the attitude behind it is. Car driving is an incredibly privileged activity on many levels in the US. Cars are subsidized on every level from manufacturing to international policy to transportation planning policy on every scale. Car right-of-ways take priority almost always, almost everywhere (with good reason much of the time, but explain that to a kid trying to get around town without a car and having to cross a 10-lane freeway on an 8-lane road with 45 mph traffic to get from home to school, a common occurrence where I live). So the next time you become enraged by a cyclist messing with your right to go fast, why don't you go ask your city council to fund more bike overpasses and dedicated bike lanes in your community? They're an incredibly cheap, great investment that doubles as recreational park land. And if your city has no room for bike lanes, think again about the car-centric planning policy that got you where you are.

knowaveragejoe 14y ago

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem for me. I'd love to bike, but I don't because there isn't enough adoption of biking, and therefore widespread respect of bikers(as difficult as they can make that sometimes). Even in DC where I live it's like this, which says a lot considering DC is one of the more bike-friendly cities in the country.

iyulaev 14y ago

Weak article. I expected a statement about cyclists being dangerous to themselves and others, but instead it's about how cyclists can do things cars can't and car drivers are upset about it. Boo hoo. The reason bikes often take the lane (or at least should) is safety. Rear endings are very uncommon amongst bicycle accidents. Much more common are cars turning across a bicyclist's right-of-way, either a left turn from the opposite direction or a right hook. Taking the lane increases visibility and makes these accidents less likely. We're weighing inconvenience (or maybe, as the article points out, moral insult) against safety and it should be obvious which is more important.

splitrocket 14y ago

How the Dutch got their bike paths: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-dutch-got-their-bike-paths http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-du...

owenjones 14y ago

As a cyclist who prides himself on being calm and restrained, I'm always upset whenever I read (literally) any article about cyclists and drivers on the internet. In Philadelphia there has been a lot of tension between the groups and several local news websites have a serious anti-bike bias both in their articles and in their comments. Wishes to ram bicyclists off the road are commonly expressed, and every sweeping generalization is backed up by some anecdotal evidence. MOST of my friends have been hit-and-run by cars at this point (injuries up to a broken arm) and we're not bike punks or teenagers or activists just adults trying to get to work. Look at the comments in this article too: "a lot of cyclist do do infuriating, selfish things", "I still find myself enraged at cyclists when I drive", "Get the hell out of my way!", "It becomes enraging when they break traffic laws" It seems most people behind the wheel of a car, or even bike, become ENRAGED the second they have to tap the breaks a little. People need to relax and see the injurable PEOPLE operating the vehicles around them. Sadly I don't think this article gets to the deeper issue.

steveklabnik 14y ago
Over on the other side of the state, we actually had a situation where a motorist stabbed a cyclist repeatedly and slit their throat: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-police-search-for-south-side-bicyclists-attacker-652179/ http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city...

munin 14y ago

when I'm a pedestrian, I get angry at cyclists because the zip past me on the sidewalk going 10-20 miles an hour. what happens when you run into someone at that speed? why don't you think about other people? when I'm a motorist, I get angry at cyclists when they put me in danger. driving at night on country roads can be tricky, and sitting behind a cyclist who is going 8-10mph on a 45mph road puts me in danger to other cars who could rear-end me. why do I have to put myself in this danger for your hobby?

zecho 14y ago
I doubt that you're the one in danger when you're driving.

macey 14y ago

I'd say that no small part of the rage comes from fear. If I'm driving next to a cyclist that breaks the rules, I have to immediately become hypervigilant and pay a disproprortionate amount of attention to this cyclist and their behavior. It's my responsibility to pay that attention, though, because if I don't, I'm risking seriously injuring or even killing that person. Humans on wheels are extremely vulnerable. Frankly, a lot of cyclist behavior I see when I'm driving involves a pretty low level of vigilance - it certainly doesn't scale with the amount of danger they're facing. I don't mean to sound overdramatic here, but if I break a driving rule like forgetting to signal, and I get rear-ended, that sucks balls for me, but there was virtually no chance of me being killed (or killing somebody), assuming a city environment. Regardless of legal implications, nobody wants that on their hands, and it's easy to see how worrying about it would get anybody heated.

malbs 14y ago

Australian Cyclist here. Firstly, if I could ride to/from work without riding on roads, I would. I don't feel safe riding on the road. I don't like riding on the road, but I do it because where I live there is no other option. I have travelled to Canberra and I'm incredibly jealous of their cycling infrastructure. Secondly, roads are paid for by fuel tax, so yes, I'm getting a free ride because my bike doesn't consume fossil fuels, only weetbix. I do own a car however, and do spend over $100aud per week on fuel (kids taxi service). So I do contribute to the infrastructure costs. I guess I mostly agree with what the article suggests, hell, when I'm riding and another bloke on a bike rides through a red light, I think "you shouldn't be on the roads if you're unwilling to follow the road rules", it even makes me irritated. There are a vast number of cyclists who don't know the actual road rules when it comes to cycling. I thought I did until I sat down with the rule handbook and read the cycling section from start to finish, and realised I commonly broke a number of rules. Riders who insist on cycling in the middle of the lane - irritating. I realise a cyclist needs to keep enough space for themselves, and riding right next to parked cars is scary as hell due to the fear of someone opening a car door on you (it's not pretty), but if I'm ever holding up traffic, I just pull over and wait for the cars to clear. The worst thing you could experience is having someone in a car sitting on your shoulder, so close you can feel the heat from the engine. I've been attacked while on my bike a number of times. The most common reason that I seem to get attacked for is filtering. That is, moving up between lanes at a red light, to the front of the queue, so to the folks in cars I guess I'm a queue jumper. I've had people drive past me in their car and have a passenger open their door into me (yes while we were both moving) - the police planned to charge that guy with attempted murder, but he was driving a car with stolen license plate. However, the more I get attacked, the more I want to break the rules, how ironic! The worst are pedestrians though, they just walk out in front of you.

null_ptr 14y ago

I don't understand why bicycles are allowed to drive on roads alongside cars. It is such an obvious hazard for the bikers. Fender benders happen all the time, but what happens when one person is behind the wheel of a mamoth SUV and the other is on a bicycle? It's horrific to think about. Joggers aren't allowed to run on roads, why are bikers?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
steveklabnik 14y ago
First of all, because it's the law. It's the law because, as dangerous as roads usually are, it's better for everyone if cyclists are on the road. If cyclists are on the sidewalk, it's similar to the way that cars are to bikes: much faster, larger, and more dangerous. And pedestrians don't have anywhere else to go, so putting bikes there doesn't make a ton of sense. If cyclists are on the road, there's already an entire set of rules for how vehicles are supposed to operate and interact. And cyclists aren't allowed on roads where it's _truly_ dangerous for them, like expressways.

davekinkead 14y ago

I'd argue that the author got the description right while getting the reason wrong. First up a confession. I'm a cycling tragic who'd like nothing more to see the vast majority of urban transportation space allocated to walking, cycling and PT. But cyclists do upset the 'moral order of the road'. The speed differential between car & bike is significant which causes cyclists to disrupt traffic flow. Many cyclists don't conform to road rules (I treat stop signs as give way/yields all the time). Cyclists can easily navigate through gridlock that leaves motorists fuming in rage, and they do so with a smile on their face because lets face it, its very hard to arrive anywhere bummed if you got there via a relaxing ride. The moral order of the road, like most things in life, is reciprocity. If I'm stuck in traffic, then everyone should be. If I have to follow these rules, then everyone should. When people don't do these things, we get angry because it just isn't fair. But what the author misses completely is why the order exists in the first place and why cyclists (often) think they can be excused from this order. The moral order on the footpath/sidewalk/mall is completely different to the road. Watching people walk through a crowd is like looking at ants. Chaos. But ordered chaos. There are no formal rules (until one steps on the road that is) but people manage just fine thanks to common sense, social convention and lack of speed differential. Before the car, this is exactly what our roads used to be like. Cyclists (mostly) realise that road rules were created with little regard for them. Hence they don't feel the same degree of reciprocity that motorists do (who typically don't realise road rules have little regard for the needs of cyclists). Hence animosity between two groups who have very different conceptions of fairness. If cyclists had dedicated space however, or if road rules gave equal concern to all users, then I think the animosity would be much less. Just look at the animosity (or lack of) between motorists and PT users. Motorists can see a trade off (crowded buses, no door-to-door service) for any dedicated road space/transit lanes they may receive, hence exceptions to the 'moral order' of the road are deemed fair. Cyclist typically don't experience that trade off because cycling as a form of transport is, well, simply the efficient and awesome to get around urban environments. The animosity then, stems from a faulty sense of reciprocity or fairness. Cyclists think they have exemptions to some motoring rules but don't seem to pay any extra costs. What motorists typically fail to realise however, is that those costs are a function of their transport choice - they get stuck in traffic simply because they are the traffic.