Crazy Motorists

[Ninety5rpm]

Just about got run off the road this morning by some delivery guy trying to look up somehting on a laptop while driving.

What gets me, almost daily on the ride home some kid or drunk guy or something will come down the road on a busted-up old mountain bike right at me (i.e. down the wrong side of the road). Where did they ever get the idea that riding towards traffic was a good idea?

Pedestrians are supposed to walk on the side of the road facing traffic, and many people think bicyclists are essentially "rolling pedestrians" (rather than vehicle drivers) and so should act and be treated accordingly, rather than follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. They think the biggest threat is from parallel traffic, and they would rather face it and see it coming than be blindly passed by it. They have no idea the much bigger threat is from cross traffic, and that riding against traffic multiples that already much higher risk by several times (because moving traffic is unexpected where they are traveling), nor do they seem to realize that being passed by 40 mph traffic while going 15 mph is a differential of only 25 mph, while riding against is a differential of 55 mph... more than 2 times faster. A pedestrian pace of 2 mph makes the difference between those differentials much less significant (42 vs 38 mph), and a pedestrian can stop and move laterally practically in an instant.

It should be noted that bike lanes seem to encourage wrong-way riding. In fact, on hills the ideal configuration (if you are to have any bike lanes) is to have a bike lane only on the uphill side, encouraging cyclists on the downhill side, because there they can keep up with normal traffic, to take the vehicular traffic lane. But it has been found that configuring streets in this manner encourages downhill cyclists to ride the wrong way in the bike lane on the other side of the street!

Moral of this story - there are MANY bad drivers and bad riders, but drivers kill people, riders only kill themselves.

Yes, bad drivers kill people, but only very rare and extraordinarily bad drivers kill law-abiding bicyclists who are paying attention and following safe-defensive traffic practices. Such crashes account for such a tiny percentage of bicycling fatalities and amounts to such a tiny risk to such cyclists that the rational cyclist is compelled to essentially ignore this possibility. I'm convinced that the cyclist who believes every crash is avoidable - whether that is actually true or not - is much better prepared to learn crash avoidance and to actually avoid crashes than is the cyclist resigned to the fact that some crashes are unavoidable and to which he is essentially a sitting duck.

I mean, of course a drunk driver might suddenly swerve from across the road right at me. But if that happens am I doomed for sure? Who knows? Are not my chances to evade collision in such a case much better if I believe there is always a chance to pull it off? What point is there in convincing myself that sometimes there is absolutely nothing I can do to evade a collision, especially considering there is no way to prove that anyway?

 

[cromagnon]

Today I was making a left hand turn at a four way stop, there was a car coming toward me, about 40 yards from the intersection, still doing about 45 mph, so i slowed my turn and changed the radius so i would stay in front of him as long as possible. Forcing him to either hit me or stop, which he finally 30 feet into the intersection.
then he lays on the horn.

When I say there needs to a licence and a test to pass in order to reproduce, people tell me that's "opressive" and "unfair". Rubbish. Life is a gift not a right.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Wherever I ride it seems like cyclists are getting hit & killed more often.
Rural areas, Urban areas all the cyclists have similar theories about driver anger towards cyclist. However i think there is a different explanation.

In Southern California we have had quite alot of road rage incidents between drivers, even shootings. While i don't doubt people are taking it out on cyclists. I imagine it is more"wrong place wrong time". Where i live & ride is fairly quiet. Years ago people would stop at the stop signs even though they were the only car on the road. Now, more often then not, the cars don't even slow down let alone stop. When i drive, people are constantly cutting me off, running stop signs its crazy. Today I was making a left hand turn at a four way stop, there was a car coming toward me, about 40 yards from the intersection, still doing about 45 mph, so i slowed my turn and changed the radius so i would stay in front of him as long as possible. Forcing him to either hit me or stop, which he finally 30 feet into the intersection.
then he lays on the horn.
this is an almost daily occurence for me while driving. If i had been on my bike i know he would probably had hit me because he knows he will be gone before any other cars show up.

Some people have no respect for the rights of others, for society or for the rule of law. Unfortunately cyclists are at the mercy of these people as we are on a 20 pound bike not a 2 ton rolling metal shield with airbags.

I am also amazed at the type of reader postings I see in various newspapers when there is an article about a cyclist being hit by a car. Inevitably, the majority of responders to these aricles blame the cyclist. They use those typical red herrings like "cyclists always run stop signs and red lights" blah blah blah. I have never seen a pediestrian or a driver in another vehicle killed let alone even hit by a cyclist popping through a stop sign. I have, however, seen multitudes of people injured, maimed and killed by cars. I regularly ask local police and state troopers where ever I am about the traffic conditions, and specifically if cyclists cause more moving violations than cars and it is always a resounding no, the cars cause 98% of all moving violations and 100% of all injuries in car to car, car to cyclist and car to pedestrian accidents.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I am also amazed at the type of reader postings I see in various newspapers when there is an article about a cyclist being hit by a car. Inevitably, the majority of responders to these aricles blame the cyclist. They use those typical red herrings like "cyclists always run stop signs and red lights" blah blah blah. I have never seen a pediestrian or a driver in another vehicle killed let alone even hit by a cyclist popping through a stop sign. I have, however, seen multitudes of people injured, maimed and killed by cars.

Well, here is an example from just a couple of days ago of a cyclist who ran a red light and got killed. Interesting comments, too.

I regularly ask local police and state troopers where ever I am about the traffic conditions, and specifically if cyclists cause more moving violations than cars and it is always a resounding no, the cars cause 98% of all moving violations and 100% of all injuries in car to car, car to cyclist and car to pedestrian accidents.

First, there are far, far fewer bicyclists than motorists. Second, cops tend not to bother with bicyclists. So, of course in absolute numbers motorists cause the vast majority of moving violations.

But if you look at actual bike-car crashes, the bicyclist is primarily at fault at least half of the time. While the motorist is primarily at fault in the other half, that doesn't mean there was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid it.

We are not sitting ducks out there. You can be safe and almost certainly avoid crashes your entire life simply by worrying about your own behavior: follow the rules and safety/defensive best practices, and pay appropriate attention to those who may be potential threats to your safety, and act accordingly.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Well, here is an example from just a couple of days ago of a cyclist who ran a red light and got killed. Interesting comments, too.


First, there are far, far fewer bicyclists than motorists. Second, cops tend not to bother with bicyclists. So, of course in absolute numbers motorists cause the vast majority of moving violations.

But if you look at actual bike-car crashes, the bicyclist is primarily at fault at least half of the time. While the motorist is primarily at fault in the other half, that doesn't mean there was nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid it.


We are not sitting ducks out there. You can be safe and almost certainly avoid crashes your entire life simply by worrying about your own behavior: follow the rules and safety/defensive best practices, and pay appropriate attention to those who may be potential threats to your safety, and act accordingly.

Perhaps this is true with some cops, but my experience is they really don't like cyclists and do what they can to harass us, especially in my two home towns San Diego and Seattle. I got a speeding ticket in Seattle doing five over the limit down Denny Hill. So, when I say they don't see as many, that is of course per capita to make up for the obvious differential in the gross numbers of motorists versus cyclists. That is how I phrase the question and they understand that.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Perhaps this is true with some cops, but my experience is they really don't like cyclists and do what they can to harass us, especially in my two home towns San Diego and Seattle. I got a speeding ticket in Seattle doing five over the limit down Denny Hill. So, when I say they don't see as many, that is of course per capita to make up for the obvious differential in the gross numbers of motorists versus cyclists. That is how I phrase the question and they understand that.

Your website homepage bio is fascinating. I'm impressed. Really. I will look for Open your heart.

I hope you fight that speeding ticket. I hear judges are pretty quick to dismiss speeding tickets for bicyclists. You were on what?

You saying cops don't see as many can only be based on what cops say they see, which has to be colored by many factors, including their own biases, impressions and the fact that there are far fewer bicyclists than motorists. Unless you're doing a scientific study and keeping accurate counts, it's all pretty meaningless. That said, people who actually sit and count stop and red light runners over fixed periods of time report a far greater incidence of violation by bicyclists than by motorists - on the order of 2-5% of motorists and 90% of bicyclists not coming to a complete stop, for example, if I remember correctly. I see a wrong-way motorists about once every 10 years, and usually on a one-way street. I see wrong-way bicyclists at least once a month, often many times a month. Of course motorists win hands down when it comes to speeding (your incident not withstanding). I can't tell you how many times I've seen bicyclists blow stop signs, ride on the wrong side or ride at night without lights (the cause of about 1/2 of all bicycling fatalities) in front of cops who did nothing about it.

I don't know if cops don't like bicyclists as much as they believe that bicyclists are doing something inherently very dangerous, so they feel justified in just about anything that gets the bicyclist off the road and out of that perceived-to-be-unavoidable danger, including intimidation. Again, their views are skewed because they see much more often than others what happens when bicyclists collide with multi-ton vehicles. They have no way of knowing and are rarely bright enough to realize that the vast majority of bicyclists that are hit and injured come from the portion of bicyclists that flaunt the laws and best practices, if they even know what those are.

 

[craig1985]

Getting a speeding fine for going to slow downhill on a bicycle? WTF? Just as well as it doesn't happen here or hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, as I would have collected quite a few fines for when I go mountain climbing and how fast I desend as I often go around bends at more then 10km/h over the recommended speed.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Getting a speeding fine for going to slow downhill on a bicycle?

No, he says he got a ticket for going too fast.

I got a speeding ticket in Seattle doing five over the limit down Denny Hill.

 

[craig1985]

No, he says he got a ticket for going too fast.

I hope such a rule doesn't exist in Australia since I would be fined a lot of money I don't have.

 

[cromagnon]

They have no way of knowing and are rarely bright enough to realize that the vast majority of bicyclists that are hit and injured come from the portion of bicyclists that flaunt the laws and best practices, if they even know what those are.

Basically motorists on bikes

No just kidding (kind of) but I see commuter types who often don't consider themselves cyclists running red lights, jumping on and off the curb as and when it suits them, not using lights and reflective gear, not wearing a helmet, and actually trying to race me in traffic (for 50 yards of my 70 mile ride).

I see very few riders on good road bikes, in proper road gear (cycling enthusiasts basically people who might be in a club, people who have heard of bike races other than the TDF) riding like bell-ends.

I go slow in traffic because every single mini-incident I have had occured when i was going 20+ mph. Motorists just cannot calculate for you when you're going moderately fast. At a lower speed I see what's going to happen and it doesn't happen to me, out of the city is for going fast, it takes mental discipline but the danger from cars is drastically reduced.

 

[craig1985]

One of the rants here by motorists against cyclists is that cyclists (wearing proper cycling gear etc.) are "practising their racing moves". WTF? Yes I have ridden and do ride in bunches that do intervals, but that is done where it is quiet and everybody is riding single file because the pace is pretty high and it is certainly something not done in heavy traffic. Any sprints towards town signs are done in middle of nowhere.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I go slow in traffic because every single mini-incident I have had occured when i was going 20+ mph. Motorists just cannot calculate for you when you're going moderately fast. At a lower speed I see what's going to happen and it doesn't happen to me, out of the city is for going fast, it takes mental discipline but the danger from cars is drastically reduced.

The calculations that motorists must make in order to determine how fast you're going are not much different if you're on a bicycle or a motorcycle. There might be some implicit assumption about slowness if you're on a pedal-cycle rather than a motor-cycle, but I have no issues riding fast on my suburban commute, hitting 45+ mph in both directions (with the aid of gravity on downhills, of course).

I think a more significant factor in "mini-incidents" and as well as in major incidents is that the bicyclist is overlooked because he is riding where bicyclists typically ride... rather than where vehicular traffic is expected... and the high speed is just a mitigating factor. By moving out clearly into the lane where motorcyclists typically position themselves, not only are you more conspicuous and much less likely to be overlooked, but your own sight lines are improved so you can identify potential conflicts better and sooner, and you have more buffer/escape space all around you to work with.

In short, there is no reason to ride any slower than a safe experienced motorcyclist would ride in a given situation, if you're also riding safely and positioning yourself similarly.

But even if you're riding fast, you are often likely not to be moving as fast as motor traffic. At those times, when it's safe, reasonable and the lane is wide enough to do so, yes, move aside to allow them to pass, but only stay moved aside until they've passed, then move back to what John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, calls the "default position" - out near the center of the lane - for all the reasons noted above and earlier in this thread.

 

[cromagnon]

In short, there is no reason to ride any slower than a safe experienced motorcyclist would ride in a given situation, if you're also riding safely and positioning yourself similarly.

Except it's safer. Experience vs theory Ride 20mph+ and you will have more accidents in London when following the rules than below 20 mph. I am talking places that have heavy traffic 24/7. I am not a pussy or coward I used to ride like a messenger shooting gaps weaving in and out of traffic jams and a lot more until I realised it was completely ***.

 

[fatandfast]

Machismo can get you killed. Shaved legs,a chunk of styrofoam on your head and a lycra suit. Pussy? Coward? just don't ride like an organ donor and always back down. The car or truck always has the right of way,always. All of us on sub 20 pound bikes are weaker than those with air bags that out weigh us by 1000s if we were just wrestling, when they are going 50-90% faster with the weight it is always a loss in the cyclist record. Riding and training on busy roads confirms that all people in cars are assumed to be assholes until they buy you beer at the pub.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

In short, there is no reason to ride any slower than a safe experienced motorcyclist would ride in a given situation, if you're also riding safely and positioning yourself similarly.

Except it's safer. Experience vs theory Ride 20mph+ and you will have more accidents in London when following the rules than below 20 mph. I am talking places that have heavy traffic 24/7. I am not a pussy or coward I used to ride like a messenger shooting gaps weaving in and out of traffic jams and a lot more until I realised it was completely ***.

Yes, going slower is safer, but it would be safer to go that slow for the safe motorcyclist too, and it would be even safer to stay home.

Once you are going slow enough to be "safe" (by whatever standard you choose), going even slower is still even safer, of course, but at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I'm merely saying that if a motorcyclist is reasonably safe in a given position at a given speed, you're just as safe on a bicycle in that position at that speed. But, if you're riding in more of an "out of the way" position, you are likely to be at more risk at that speed (closer to curbside hazards, less conspicuous, etc.), and need to slow down to be just as safe.

 

[usedtobefast]

Machismo can get you killed. Shaved legs,a chunk of styrofoam on your head and a lycra suit. Pussy? Coward? just don't ride like an organ donor and always back down. The car or truck always has the right of way,always. All of us on sub 20 pound bikes are weaker than those with air bags that out weigh us by 1000s if we were just wrestling, when they are going 50-90% faster with the weight it is always a loss in the cyclist record. Riding and training on busy roads confirms that all people in cars are assumed to be assholes until they buy you beer at the pub.

i put my hand on the car that was taking me out, and the force that came
from that contact was huge. a lot of power and energy, and we are no match.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Machismo can get you killed. Shaved legs,a chunk of styrofoam on your head and a lycra suit. Pussy? Coward? just don't ride like an organ donor and always back down. The car or truck always has the right of way,always. All of us on sub 20 pound bikes are weaker than those with air bags that out weigh us by 1000s if we were just wrestling, when they are going 50-90% faster with the weight it is always a loss in the cyclist record. Riding and training on busy roads confirms that all people in cars are assumed to be assholes until they buy you beer at the pub.

There is an enormous difference between asserting your right of way normally, and insisting on it when someone else is declining to yield it accordingly. In the latter case, yeah, I would back down, but that almost never happens. I can't think of even one such situation, off hand, in 40+ years of bicycling.

The vast majority of bike-crashes involve poorly positioned and inevitably overlooked bicyclists, and are not the result of a disagreement over right of way.

 

[craig1985]

95rpm, I have been meaning to ask, what caused you to crash recently that gave you road rash?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

95rpm, I have been meaning to ask, what caused you to crash recently that gave you road rash?

Not paying good enough attention in a paceline! I didn't notice an obstruction up ahead (I was about 9th in a line of about 10). Neither did the three or four folks in front of me who went down. By the time I noticed it, there were bodies on the ground and no where to go but hit one of them at 25 mph and go down. Ouch!!! Maybe a bunny hop would have worked, but if I cleared one person chances were I would have landed on another! In retrospect I should have noticed it coming and adjusted out of the line of impact. If the lead guys had adjusted for it sooner that would have saved us too.

First crash since I was a kid. Very humbling.

 

[Old Derailleur-in-the-mist]

It's going to take a combined educative and political approach. Where I ride the traffic is always light but there are still yahoos from time to time who seem to believe that bikes do not belong on 'their' roads.
The local RCMP are great. When someone 'brushes' by us we notify them and the driver gets a polite call. (The driver's code says you must treat a bike as a slow moving vehicle and leave at least a meter when passing)
One fellow actually wrote to our small local paper to complain about bikes on our winding coastal road.......... leaving us with the opportunity to educate the public through the letters column.
Of course we have the advantage, on an island of under 6000 people, that drivers know that if they hit a cyclist it's likely their home-builder, doctor, neighbours kid etc..... and while road rage ("get off the fzcking road!!") occurs and while there's LOTS of firearms on the islands.... the dear hunting's great, we don't have the problem of 'concealed' weapons that they have in the states.
Cyclists need to get vocal and public with their concerns and needs........ and let the public know that they pay taxes too.

 

[Steampunk]

It's going to take a combined educative and political approach. Where I ride the traffic is always light but there are still yahoos from time to time who seem to believe that bikes do not belong on 'their' roads.
The local RCMP are great. When someone 'brushes' by us we notify them and the driver gets a polite call. (The driver's code says you must treat a bike as a slow moving vehicle and leave at least a meter when passing)
One fellow actually wrote to our small local paper to complain about bikes on our winding coastal road.......... leaving us with the opportunity to educate the public through the letters column.
Of course we have the advantage, on an island of under 6000 people, that drivers know that if they hit a cyclist it's likely their home-builder, doctor, neighbours kid etc..... and while road rage ("get off the fzcking road!!") occurs and while there's LOTS of firearms on the islands.... the dear hunting's great, we don't have the problem of 'concealed' weapons that they have in the states.
Cyclists need to get vocal and public with their concerns and needs........ and let the public know that they pay taxes too.

I got distracted reading after I saw where you were from. You live in the most beautiful corner of the planet!

 

[Bala Verde]

In the Netherlands they just announced a gvmt plan to inject 25Mill Euros to increase the kms of 'bike highways'. New bike lanes without speed bumps, too many or any junctions, or traffic lights, cracks and potholes. It is estimated that 5% of motorists will leave the car at home, in favour of the bike to commute.

So far, in the US it seems that many people just have no respect and concern for bikers. Especially the 'late' commuters, are in such a hurry, refuse to take highways and prefer the park way shortcuts, and get upset about the biker being in HIS lane/on HIS road.

Some of these 'nazi scumbags' have a tendency to force you or wish you in the gutter, where you supposedly belong as a paria of the road, instead of sharing the road.

That's why I refuse to accomodate cars - when it's not prudent for my safety - and move too much to the right of the road, so that they can easily pass me. I take the part of the road that has the best surface. The last thing I want is to ride in a crack or a pothole, while someone doesn't take enough space to overtake me. That's a recipe for disaster. Sitting in their small-penis syndrom compensation SUVs which barely fit a lane anyway, the hurl at you everything they've got.

They should also severly fine people for driving and talking/texting on the phone.

Is there any website, or an idea for a website, were people can post pictures (of licence plates) of 'agressive drivers'?

 

[Aapjes]

In the Netherlands they just announced a gvmt plan to inject 25Mill Euros to increase the kms of 'bike highways'. New bike lanes without speed bumps, too many or any junctions, or traffic lights, cracks and potholes. It is estimated that 5% of motorists will leave the car at home, in favour of the bike to commute.

Unfortunately there are no plans for my commute, but it is a great idea. For cars and trains, direct links are made between major urban centres, where obstacles are seized using eminent domain. So why not do the same for the least polluting, most healthy and least intrusive form of travel. This is an example of a current highway between Amsterdam and Utrecht:

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Unfortunately there are no plans for my commute, but it is a great idea. For cars and trains, direct links are made between major urban centres, where obstacles are seized using eminent domain. So why not do the same for the least polluting, most healthy and least intrusive form of travel. This is an example of a current highway between Amsterdam and Utrecht:

Is it safe to ride in a paceline at 20-30+mph (30-50+kph) on these things? It looks okay if it's as empty as it looks here, but I can't imagine doing that safely when it's more crowded. At the same time, with such a "nice" bike highway "available", cycling on the road is probably frowned upon, if not outright illegal, no?

Also, does the "highway" support bike travel in both directions? If so, two cyclists each riding 20 mph (30 kph) in opposite directions are approaching each other at 40 mph (60 kph). With no center dividing stripe? Yikes!

I mean, it looks great for casual riding and relatively short transportation needs, but not for anything really serious. And that's fine, except for the point above, if its very existence precludes the use of the road for more serious cycling needs.

 

[Cobber]

Unfortunately there are no plans for my commute, but it is a great idea. For cars and trains, direct links are made between major urban centres, where obstacles are seized using eminent domain. So why not do the same for the least polluting, most healthy and least intrusive form of travel. This is an example of a current highway between Amsterdam and Utrecht:

I want to go to there!