Car Trouble

June 17, 2009 6:46 PM

Fliers are being distributed in rural Boulder County calling on motorists blockade bicyclists in an upcoming organized ride (via 303cycling).

This is not the first trouble for cyclists in the Boulder area. Last spring the Colorado cyclists knocked heads with the Larimer County Sheriff. The sheriff even lobbied against the Colorado Bicycle Safety Act, which passed and goes into effect on August 5, 2009.

posted by gruchall (145 comments total)

The fliers — which started appearing in mountain communities last week, a few days after a Boulder driver was ticketed on suspicion of endangering a cyclist on Lee Hill Road...the anonymous, one-page note...

I'm guessing not terribly anonymous. Is there any evidence that this is a mass movement, rather than the action of one asshole who's pissed about getting a ticket?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:55 PM on June 17

*sigh*

Can't we all just get along? I have two pet peevs, drivers who endanger cyclists and bad cyclists that make people hate other cyclists.

I'm going to do grease my bike chain now...
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 6:56 PM on June 17 [7 favorites has favorites]

go*


another sigh for bad typing
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 6:57 PM on June 17

Can't we all just get along? I have two pet peevs, drivers who endanger cyclists and bad cyclists that make people hate other cyclists.

As a frequent pedestrian, I have a pet peeve to add - cyclists who endanger pedestrians, refuse to obey traffic rules, and otherwise refuse to "share the road" with those on foot. When I drive (as someone who had a loved one on a bike nearly run over by a car driver), I endeavor to respect those on bikes. As a walker, I rarely receive the respect from bikers that they purport to demand from drivers. I've been run down; seen kids run down; seen traffic lights and signs disobeyed....

So i kinda see where the anti-cyclist movement is coming from.

Of course I recognize that not all - and perhaps even a small minority - of bikers exhibit these bad behaviors, and when I drive a car I respect all on foot or bike...

but....
posted by bunnycup at 7:01 PM on June 17 [19 favorites has favorites]

Cars blockading bicycles? HORRIBLE!

Critical Mass? That's totally different! Somehow!
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:04 PM on June 17 [32 favorites has favorites]

I hope some buildup organizes a counter protest in the notewriter's arteries, slowing down traffic just so slightly as to send a message to the angry driver - just as he misses a turn on the way to his mission. That's the kind of civil disobedience I would hope all red-blooded cells can get behind.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:05 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

I agree with julie_of_the_jungle. I also expect both groups to slowly wane in the US over the next few decades as cycling to get around becomes more mainstream, with the whole peak oil and inflation situation.
posted by waxboy at 7:08 PM on June 17

As a frequent pedestrian, I'm much more frequently nearly run down by cars. Nearly every day there's a situation where I'm in a crosswalk, with full legal right of way, and a motorist just goes ahead and powers through like I'm not even there. The idea of being 'run down' by a cyclist is pretty hilarious.
posted by mullingitover at 7:08 PM on June 17 [9 favorites has favorites]

Critical Mass? That's totally different! Somehow!

It's different by a few thousand pounds.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:09 PM on June 17 [14 favorites has favorites]

After living in Austria and enjoying the bicyclist-friendly drivers, bike lanes and dedicated bike paths, I am so not looking forward to going back to the States. In my time as a bicyclist in Maine, I've had glass bottles thrown at me, been spat on, swerved at and run off the road.
posted by dunkadunc at 7:10 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

...also, cars blockading bicycles? I lol'd pretty hard at that one. Best of luck to these geniuses.
posted by mullingitover at 7:11 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

Hmm it would be interesting to know if the road race is actually cutting off services/access to hospitals etc for people in remote areas. Living in Boston, I know that all of the charity walks/races etc. can be a big hassle, and in a remote area with only a few main roads it has the potential to be a major inconvenience and even deadly, if emergency services can't get through. I'd be willing to guess that there is some level of class tension involved, since the type of person who ride road races tend to be at least upper middle class (have you seen how much those bikes cost?) and I bet the people targeted by the fliers are largely working class.

The idea of being 'run down' by a cyclist is pretty hilarious.
Um, no. It isn't. I've known two people who have been seriously injured by bicycles (at least one of which was riding the wrong way down a one way street). As a bicyclist who regularly shares the road with cars, I think both sides have a lot to work on.
posted by fermezporte at 7:13 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

Do you want me to punch you in the face?

-Greg Lemond, cyclist
posted by Mister_A at 7:13 PM on June 17

Having biked through Boulder, I can see how the non-bikers could get annoyed at the sheer number of cyclists on the road. However, not an excuse. At all.

At least the roads in CO tend to have pretty wide shoulders. Utah and Nevada were a lot trickier (though less populated).
posted by charmcityblues at 7:13 PM on June 17

posted by DecemberBoy Critical Mass? That's totally different! Somehow!

Bicycle Critical Mass happens once a month.

Car Critical Mass happens every day, usually from 8a-10a and then again from 3-6p.
posted by mattdidthat at 7:13 PM on June 17 [21 favorites has favorites]

>: I also expect both groups to slowly wane in the US over the next few decades as cycling to get around becomes more mainstream, with the whole peak oil and inflation situation.

In my town, almost the only people riding bikes are, ironically, rich people riding for fun in those horrible spandex pants. The only way the situation will change is if working people have to start riding.

>: The idea of being 'run down' by a cyclist is pretty hilarious.
It happened to me once. I was totally all right, he was terrified I was going to sue or something.

>: Critical Mass? That's totally different! Somehow!

This is idiotic.
posted by dunkadunc at 7:15 PM on June 17 [3 favorites has favorites]

I've never had any encounters with intentionally bad drivers *knocks on wood*, but I've had my run ins (literally!) with careless drivers. Last year I was coming down a hill at a pretty steady clip and dude decided to pull out of his driveway and I smashed into the side of his truck. I was just bumped and bruised but it scared the shit out of him and he got a PSA about it in the local paper in regards to being aware of cyclists. It was kinda cool.
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 7:17 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

(I also got a new free bike out of it, that adds to the coolness)
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 7:17 PM on June 17

I should clarify: in comparison to being run down by a car 2000+ lb car, being run down by a cyclist on a 20ish pound bicycle is orders of magnitude less scary. The contrast in level of danger is enough to make the collision with a cyclist seem trivial by comparison. Also, there are far more cars on the road.
posted by mullingitover at 7:18 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

Here in Toronto the more obnoxious elements of the press are freaking out about a "war on cars" because the city is changing Jarvis from a five lane road with alternating directions in the middle lane, to a four lane road with two bike lanes. This year alone, I have been hit by cars twice, both times while I was in a bike lane. Yesterday, someone honked at me because I didn't get over into a bike lane fast enough after making a left (of course I left him in my dust when he hit traffic two minutes later). I obey traffic laws and stop at both stop signs and red lights (btw, the fine for running a red on a bike is $70 higher than the fine for injuring a cyclist by hitting them with your door/. I do not ride on the sidewalk.

So, you know what? Fuck whiny drivers. Fuck 'em.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:20 PM on June 17 [9 favorites has favorites]

In my town, almost the only people riding bikes are, ironically, rich people riding for fun in those horrible spandex pants. The only way the situation will change is if working people have to start riding.

*sigh* The spandex pants people are the worst cyclists in my town. The people that actually bike because that's their transportation are much more aware of the road and the rules (ymmv). Maybe it's because they lack the money to sue/pay a ticket?
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 7:21 PM on June 17

What's most troubling to me about a small minority of bicyclists is this notion that, because they're on a bike they're "special" and always deserve the right of way, rules of the road be damned. So while getting hit by a bicyclist is almost always not as bad as getting hit by a car, it's really nothing to laugh about.
posted by dhammond at 7:25 PM on June 17 [7 favorites has favorites]

Hmm it would be interesting to know if the road race is actually cutting off services/access to hospitals etc for people in remote areas.

Towards the end of the article:
...That means Boulder County sheriff’s deputies and state troopers will be stationed along the entire route, but cyclists have to obey regular traffic rules, and no roads will be closed for the event. Signs warning residents and drivers about the ride will also be posted....
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 7:26 PM on June 17

After living in Austria and enjoying the bicyclist-friendly drivers, bike lanes and dedicated bike paths, I am so not looking forward to going back to the States. In my time as a bicyclist in Maine, I've had glass bottles thrown at me, been spat on, swerved at and run off the road.

Man, the stories I hear some times about this kind of thing around the country just blow my mind. I actually have had someone yell something at me as I was biking around, but it was only once. No one's ever thrown anything at me. Crazyness.

I did get hit by a car once though. I was on a bikepath and crossing a road with a green light. After I got halfway through the intersection the guy decided to try doing a right on red and smacked into me. I was going pretty quickly, and he probably had trouble seeing me because the path was on the left side of the road.

As far as pedestrians worrying about bikers, meh. It's not like it's going to kill you. The situations are not comparable.
posted by delmoi at 7:28 PM on June 17

So while getting hit by a bicyclist is almost always not as bad as getting hit by a car, it's really nothing to laugh about.

Yes. exactly.
posted by bunnycup at 7:29 PM on June 17

It was pretty crazy watching this douchebag I knew hit a girl on a crosswalk. 'Hey, brakes, use them, david!'

It was pretty trainwreck.
posted by rubah at 7:33 PM on June 17

The contrast in level of danger is enough to make the collision with a cyclist seem trivial by comparison.

Yet, I STILL think car-drivers should make an effort not to run over anyone, AS SHOULD BICYCLISTS. Again, not saying at all the majority of bikers are careless, but just that as a pedestrian, I don't want to be run over by ANYONE!!
posted by bunnycup at 7:33 PM on June 17

The new law about to go into effect "increases the penalty for tossing objects at riders."

I think this hints at the problem: A) that they would need a law to discourage throwing things at cyclists, and B) that said law is not working.
posted by snofoam at 7:38 PM on June 17

mullingitover:

One time I saw a bicyclist in Brooklyn riding the wrong way on a one way street who was not looking where he was going slam into a pedestrian. The girl had stopped, then gone back, and did everything in her power for seconds to try to avoid the guy, but because he was looking back over his shoulder, disobeying a fundamental traffic law, and going as fast as he could while doing it, she simply couldn't -- he kind of swerved, and smacked into her.

I still remember the sight of her limp, bloody body as she was loaded into the ambulance. And I still remember the bicyclist looking peeved while talking to police.

Yes, this is just an anecdote. Yes, cars are obviously much more dangerous. But I've seen people get struck by cars in city streets (yes I have) who have stood up and walked away. And I don't know what happened to this girl, but I DO know that she was totally unresponsive (I ran over and checked to see if she was breathing) for at least ten minutes, and that's not a stretch to equate that to "brain damage for the rest of your life."

So, yeah. No excuses. Bicyclists: fucking stop bulldozing through red lights if you want me to be sympathetic to your cause. I'm not talking about coasting through an empty intersection, I'm talking about the Running-of-the-bulls shit that seems to happen every single time I'm in Union Square. Your stupid bullshit can kill someone just the same.

(And, to complete the cycle: pedestrians, look both ways for god's sake, especially when you jaywalk.)
posted by Damn That Television at 7:40 PM on June 17 [25 favorites has favorites]

>>: I also expect both groups to slowly wane in the US over the next few decades as cycling to get around becomes more mainstream, with the whole peak oil and inflation situation.

>:In my town, almost the only people riding bikes are, ironically, rich people riding for fun in those horrible spandex pants. The only way the situation will change is if working people have to start riding.

My point exactly.
posted by waxboy at 7:41 PM on June 17

Bicycle Critical Mass happens once a month.

Car Critical Mass happens every day, usually from 8a-10a and then again from 3-6p.

Usually, I disagree with this guy, but on this point he's spot on.

I went on a bike trip from Seattle to Bellingham a few weeks ago, and we slogged up Chuckanut Drive from Rt. 20. There's a stretch where the road curves and visibility is poor for cars, but they still managed to try to bully us off the road by honking, even though they would have been driving at 15-20 mph anyway. No matter that we were on the very edge of the road trying to dodge garbage, gravel, road debris and shards of glass.

Fuck cars, fuck impatient drivers and fuck the planners who developed our transportation system around these people and their death traps. I own a car and it has been a huge pain in the ass, financially and logistically, and one that I just can't avoid once every other week.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:43 PM on June 17 [6 favorites has favorites]

After living in Austria and enjoying the bicyclist-friendly drivers, bike lanes and dedicated bike paths, I am so not looking forward to going back to the States.

Several years ago my wife and I tried walking the half-mile to the supermarket, pushing our kid along on a stroller. We ended up wedged on a narrow dirt trail right up against a boulevard with 50 mph, and was so dangerous we decided to return home and just get in the car.

The irony is that was in Austin, Texas, btw, which has all the image of a progressive and eco-friendly oasis but in reality it's total big-box car culture once you leave the campus/downtown area.
posted by crapmatic at 7:45 PM on June 17

As a general pedestrian, sometimes driver, I find that the main problem with bicyclists is the smug sense of satisfaction they have about their dangerous violations of traffic laws. It's not like I don't run red lights in my car because I can't, I don't run them because it's dangerous. It's just as dangerous when you do it on a bike. You're not better than me because you're not in a car, and you're not entitled to break the law, especially not when the legal consequences if I hit your ass are all going to fall on me. If you want people to share the road with you, act like you belong there.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:47 PM on June 17 [6 favorites has favorites]

People in cars need to respect people on bikes. People on bikes need to respect people walking and the rules of the road. Ive been run down by a biker once who was riding side by side with another bike on the side walk. There was a lane on the road for them, but when the came to me on the side walk the guy sped up to pass his friend and hit my leg and ran over my leg. Didn't even ask if I was ok just picked up his bike and kept going. I also lived next to an intersection and saw a biker get hit by a car after he, (the biker) went through a red light and got t-boned by a car with a green light. Luckily the kid was ok and just had some scrapes but if he had aided by the rules of the road he would have been fine.

That said, bikers deserve to be on the road just as much as cars and trucks do. Drivers need to be more observant of bikers. But blocking a road race? Not the smartest way to get your point across. There just needs to be mutual respect between bikers and cars. When will this happen? My guess is not until there's more bike lanes on the streets.
posted by lilkeith07 at 7:47 PM on June 17

[personal anecdote re: horrible cyclist or driver to support my point of view]
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 7:55 PM on June 17 [9 favorites has favorites]

The scariest drivers are the cell phone people. They drive like it's an easy video game level that they have to zoom through without trying because they forgot to save a harder level. They zoom up to stop signs, barely slow down, barely look around, and speed right on through.

When I get run over, it will be by someone who was looking right into my eyes when they stepped on the gas.
posted by popechunk at 7:56 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

Tragic exceptions aside, the equating of bicycle to motorized vehicle collisions is ludicrous - cars are involved in the vast majority of accidents resulting in serious injury regardless of whether it's a collision with a pedestrian, cyclist, or other cars. No matter how much cyclists may annoy you, the threat posed by the motorist gunning for you far outweighs (heh) the cyclist bearing down on you. The physics is clear: these are not the same and neither are the rules.

That being said, while sharing paths can be tricky at times, any cyclist who is aggressive towards or intimidates pedestrians is ignorant and short sighted - and probably doesn't deserve use of the path (gotta be a path - b/c cyclist shouldn't be on sidewalks and pedestrians not in roads right?)

But, cars? You gotta be kidding me - been on the gravy train too long and are currently suffering from a blinding sense of privilege towards the public transportation routes. Everyone's a commando in their private tank - and whether I'm on foot (everyday) or bike (frequent), they don't give a fuck - it's up to me to get out of the way.

eg, ban right turns on reds - every morning on the walk to work I have to take evasive action due to the head turned to the left while the car turns to the right.
posted by sloe at 8:00 PM on June 17

I would happily trade bike lanes for attentive and respectful drivers. As I pointed out before, both times that I've been hit this year, I was in the bike lane. Frankly, I'd rather have the freedom to take evasive action (actually, I do- there is no law compelling cyclists to stay in the bike lane, but most drivers don't understand that). I'd prefer not being limited to an area of road that people park in, buses pull over into, and that leaves me at the risk of the door prize. I get angry when I see other cyclists breaking traffic laws, but I get far angrier when I see drivers doing it, or generally driving in a careless or inattentive manner (which I see all the time).

However, bike lanes make many cyclists feel a lot safer, so I've come to terms with them. I just wish that in Toronto they actually connected with each other and weren't just arbitrarily distributed throughout the town a few blocks at a time.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:00 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

There's a lot of spandex-clad bikers on the route between Denver and Boulder. I don't have anything against bicycles, per se. But goddamit, I'm just trying to get to the Rocky Mountain National Park with a minimum of fatalities. Why are you biking on my road when you could be mountain-biking on some of the most awesome mountain-biking country god ever made?

Get some decent tires and be grateful for the bounty at your doorstep!

Take it from someone exiled to North Carolina. They even think they have mountains here!
posted by jeoc at 8:00 PM on June 17

personal anecdote re: horrible cyclist or driver to support my point of view

Personal safety issues lead to strong feelings.
posted by popechunk at 8:03 PM on June 17

I was at the Department of Vehicles the other day, trying to renew my Bicyclists License. (not the commercial one, mind you, just the recreational/taxpayer class)

There was a long line of people waiting to pick up their $9000 Offshore Tickets for new cars. It was a drag having to wait through the line.

But once I got to the clerk, she made many of these points. We reviewed traffic camera footage, and I agreed that yes, it did look like me on that bicycle running those red lights. And no, I wasn't aware that the RFID tag on my bicycle might have been removed, because whoever it was hadn't been id-locked by the system.

I asked about the fees associated with getting a Recreational Only Pedestrian license instead. But it wasn't much cheaper! What a ripoff.
posted by nervousfritz at 8:04 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

As a human being, I'm getting awfully tired of all the lazy stereotyping going on around here.

cyclists are not one thing or another - they are all sorts of things. Just like drivers. There are certain cultural issues around cycling and driving that North Americans need to work out.

But julie_of_the_jungle is right - there are shit-load of cyclists who obey the rules, and ride like a decent driver, and we're tired of being slagged off because others don't. They annoy you? You don't have to share bike lanes with them.

Maybe this is what it feels to be a visible minority - judged by the actions of anyone who looks like you. It sucks. So stop it already please.
posted by jb at 8:04 PM on June 17 [13 favorites has favorites]

I'd prefer not being limited to an area of road that people park in, buses pull over into, and that leaves me at the risk of the door prize.

I want to invent some kind of bumpy thing that can be glued to the road along the bike lane that keeps a car from going over them doing any more than 10 miles per hour (thwack, thwack, thwack, thwack). In Dallas, they have what they call "city titties" that are hard plastic domes that you can't even go over at 5 mph. I'd feel better riding along on the shoulder if I knew that a text-messaging driver wasn't drifting into my lane.
posted by popechunk at 8:08 PM on June 17

I run red lights and stop signs (when there are clear lines of sight that show no-one coming in either direction), I ride the sidewalk (where there is no pedestrian traffic along a 300' stretch of road with tons of traffic and no shoulder). I don't do this to be a scofflaw, I do this to maintain momentum and to avoid being creamed by SUVs. I ride to and from work, every day, rain and shine, and this is survival.

But, dude, someone walks in the street? Be aware of what's going on around you on your bike, and let the walkers have their way. You'll see them way before they'll see you.

Also, get over to the shoulder and let the poor cager pass, dick. And use head and tail-lights after dark, why doncha?

I don't like the idea of Critical Mass - it pisses people off, and there are more drivers than cyclists, just truth. You want to make people happy with cyclists, so the politicians put in bike lanes and bike racks everywhere. Go run errands on your bike for shut-ins instead. Shut-ins vote and write the town council letters every week. Even if it isn't noted and appreciated, hey, you got to ride your bike and help out a human being at the same time. Win/Win.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:14 PM on June 17 [3 favorites has favorites]

> ban right turns on reds - every morning on the walk to work I have to take evasive action due to the head turned to the left while the car turns to the right.

Why are you between the car and the sidewalk? Or on the sidewalk? (Is there a bike lane? I'm having a visualisation problem here)
posted by Decimask at 8:15 PM on June 17

Why are you between the car and the sidewalk? Or on the sidewalk? (Is there a bike lane? I'm having a visualisation problem here)

I think he's crossing the street while traffic is stopped at the red light. Cars can make a right on red even if pedestrians have the little crosswalk guy's approval.
posted by fermezporte at 8:26 PM on June 17

What needs to happen is a critical mass like we used to do in San Francisco. We rode to prove we weren't blocking traffic, we were traffic!
posted by schmorker at 8:26 PM on June 17

As a long-time bicyclist, I'm not much of a fan of dedicated bike lanes on the side of the road. We already have bike lanes - they're the same lanes that autos use. Separate lanes on every third or tenth major street seem to cause drivers & bikers alike to become confused on streets where there are no lanes. A good chunk of drivers don't seem to know that it is 100% legal for a biker to take a whole lane of traffic.
posted by Item at 8:29 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

Eventually, in all of these conversations I keep coming back to one idea. (I am, or have been, an operator of sneakers, bikes, motorcycles, cars, trucks and ambulances on American roads)

No amount of righteous indignation on the road will help anyone's bones knit faster. Nor will it get you out of a manslaughter charge. Go ahead and take some extra time and be polite and careful. Most people won't, and that is their loss.
posted by poe at 8:29 PM on June 17 [8 favorites has favorites]

A good chunk of drivers don't seem to know that it is 100% legal for a biker to take a whole lane of traffic.

Man, I'm not sure that's always the best way to go about things. It seems to antagonize some folks.
posted by popechunk at 8:43 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

delmoi: As far as pedestrians worrying about bikers, meh. It's not like it's going to kill you.

Actually, it totally can. Here's an example, but I'm sure it's not the only time it's happened.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:49 PM on June 17

Anecdotal Critical Mass.

(it's hurting America)
posted by Balisong at 8:50 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

A good chunk of drivers don't seem to know that it is 100% legal for a biker to take a whole lane of traffic.

It is 100% legal for me to fart on the bus, but that doesn't mean it's a courteous thing to do.
posted by brain_drain at 8:52 PM on June 17 [4 favorites has favorites]

I credit the fact that my primary transportation is a bike as the foundation behind my slavery to predictable driving (when I'm behind a wheel). I don't care if you speed, or pass me with a foot to spare, or whatever - just don't act in ways I can't expect. Don't be nice and suddenly stop to let me in front of you, I'm planning to go switch lanes right after you. Don't honk to let me know you're about to pass me - I will jerk around worried. I know you're behind me, I can hear you, and I'm looking over my shoulder. Just treat me as a competent person on the road, and we'll be fine.

And reading the comments in this thread, wow I can't believe people actually get things thrown at them. What the fuck is up with those drivers' road rage? Here I'm complaining about people stopping to let me in and causing confusion.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:54 PM on June 17 [4 favorites has favorites]

Oh and before I forget, I'd like to specifically point everyone to the comments made by David Hall & Joe Pelle, the policemen in the Fliers link. With multiple stories about the cops attacking cyclists, or denying their rights to the road, it's nice to see police who seem to solely be concerned with keeping the roads safe for everyone.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:58 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

So yeah, there's some jackass bicyclists..
3-5 million bicycle commuters at the time of the 2000 census.
196 million licensed drivers in the us.

Even at 50%, that's a fuckton more drivers.

Like it or not, the problem is as follows -

The US is very bike unfriendly.

Generally speaking, US drivers have a sense of entitlement. THey're in their car, and they have the goddamned right to never be inconvenienced by anything. This includes people walking in the crosswalks and bicyclists.

The whole attitude is shortsighted and frankly, moronic. At every turn cycling should be encouraged. And moreso, (here comes the blasphemy), at the cost of automobiles.

The dude distributing these flyers is a cockboat. Period.

It's not a viable argument about the rights of drivers, or the rights of cars. Fuck them. That day is setting. It's time for people to grow up and start to honestly treat bikes, public transportation and modern fucking city design like a bunch of grownups, and not some petulant fuck who's irritated because a cyclist isn't pulling over to let their ranchomino zoom past so they can get wherever the fuck they need to go.
posted by Lord_Pall at 9:01 PM on June 17 [8 favorites has favorites]

To add my voice to the "bikes can be a hazard, too" chorus: I am a pretty frequent user, on both wheels and feet, of a mixed-use trail near my home. Three times now, I have seen bike-pedestrian accidents, all of which involved some spandex-clad Lance Armstrong wannabe going entirely too fast for traffic and conditions. At least one of these ended with an ambulance ride for the pedestrian.
posted by deadmessenger at 9:05 PM on June 17

I wonder; if we all had jetpacks and/or flying cars, would we still complain and point fingers about road/air etiquette? My guess is.. yes.
posted by pyrex at 9:15 PM on June 17

And use head and tail-lights after dark, why doncha?

Please please please yes. And not just a teeny-blinks-once-in-a-while light either, especially on the front. Use a headlight, and wear something bright/reflective, because if you're biking after dark, you know what I see in my rearview/passenger side mirror, just before I make that right turn in front of you? The bright headlights of the cars behind me. I don't see you, because the car headlights have washed out your tiny blinky headlight. If you, cycling person, wear a reflective vest or something similar, and use a good, bright headlight, I will see you and therefore not turn right just as you're coming up along beside me!
posted by rtha at 9:19 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

Out here in the sticks, we get a lot of cyclists, I try to give them lots of room, and it's usually pretty easy. A degree of turn on the steering wheel takes me into the middle of the road when there's not oncoming traffic, leaving plenty of room for the biker or pedestrian. I can't imagine feeling inconvenienced by this.

The only bikers who get my goat are the guys who, on a busy road, ride two or three abreast, practically guaranteeing one of the rednecks around here is going to pop a gasket, leading to god knows what. It just doesn't seem very bright. (I kinda wonder if these are the same brilliant folks who walk four abreast on city sidewalks.)
posted by maxwelton at 9:19 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

As a frequent pedestrian, I have a pet peeve to add - cyclists who endanger pedestrians, refuse to obey traffic rules, and otherwise refuse to "share the road" with those on foot. When I drive (as someone who had a loved one on a bike nearly run over by a car driver), I endeavor to respect those on bikes. As a walker, I rarely receive the respect from bikers that they purport to demand from drivers. I've been run down; seen kids run down; seen traffic lights and signs disobeyed....

OH NOSE NOT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Look, I'll be straight with you: as a cyclist, I endeavour to make sure I don't inconvenience or endanger pedestrians.

But I do not give a shit about drivers. I've been hit by cars at least half a dozen times - only once did I need stitches, most of the time they manage to break enough that I just got sent flying and bruised up. I've lost three bikes because of car hits. I've had car doors slam open into my neck because drivers couldn't be bothered to look back before opening their doors. I was obeying the laws of traffic.

And you know what? Most drivers don't give a shit if you follow traffic laws or not. They just don't. Cyclists are a nuisance to them, one and all, taking up their precious fucking road space. There is literally no benefit to me obeying traffic laws because drivers don't care. And realistically, traffic laws shouldn't apply to bikes the same way they do to cars anyway; we invented traffic laws to compensate for people inside cars with lessened fields of vision and ability to hear the world outside their cars, and who can, you know, kill people with their vehicles with practically no effort. Yeah, my bike can hurt somebody pretty bad if I fuck up, but I have to be going pretty fast and I have to really, really fuck up. A car can kill you going 20mph because it's a half ton of metal.

So why should I follow traffic laws when they don't benefit me at all?
posted by mightygodking at 9:20 PM on June 17 [6 favorites has favorites]

A good chunk of drivers don't seem to know that it is 100% legal for a biker to take a whole lane of traffic.

What are the legalities with regard to speed, though? If I was driving a car at 20 MPH in an area marked at 45 I would expect to be pulled over.
posted by Kellydamnit at 9:25 PM on June 17

As far as pedestrians worrying about bikers, meh. It's not like it's going to kill you. The situations are not comparable.

I'm a pedestrian, and I do wish cyclists riding on the sidewalk would slow down a bit. I'm very willing to share the space, but please be aware that the sidewalk is not the road. Even if it's not as much of a safety issue as motor vehicles are, it doesn't do much for my peace of mind when I notice something hurtling my way at a high speed. What's the hurry?
posted by mirepoix at 9:26 PM on June 17

I propose bricks as the solution : If a pedestrian feels he's being "run down", he should trow his brick into the air and run, if the brick then hits the cars hood, windshield, driver, etc. said driver should be arrested for reckless driving. :)
posted by jeffburdges at 9:29 PM on June 17

So why should I follow traffic laws when they don't benefit me at all?

With all due respect, this statement is completely insane. Take red lights for instance, if you never, ever run red lights, it will benefit you by ensuring that you will not be hit by the cars on the road you're crossing. That's a benefit. It doesn't matter if the driver "cares" about you or not, so long as you are not in the intersection, you won't get hit. Maybe you think that you're so careful and observant that you would never get hit, but you're wrong.

If a driver said that he never obeyed traffic laws because they don't benefit him, you'd think he was at best a dick, and at worse, a lunatic. And you'd be right.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:32 PM on June 17 [13 favorites has favorites]

It's not a race; it's a ride. Here's the event site.

jeoc, most people who are serious about mountain biking spend a lot of time on their road bikes too--it's good training.

And before you think of them as "your" roads again, consider that without the advocacy of cyclists, the US wouldn't have had the paved roads necessary to market a mass-produced automobile. Not only that, a lot of the first car racers came from cycling. Barney Oldfield, in particular, helped popularize the car, previously seen as a toy of the aristocracy. Hell, even the first auto mechanics came out of bike shops.

As Lemurrhea pointed out, passing a cyclist takes nothing more than a few seconds and no more attention to the road than what you should already be providing. So what are you complaining about? The next time you see a cyclist, give 'em a lot of space, and mentally thank them for making your ride possible.
posted by hydrophonic at 9:37 PM on June 17 [5 favorites has favorites]

Plus, as an extra bonus, you get a good look at our toned, taut, Spandex-clad asses.
posted by hydrophonic at 9:44 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

I've been hit by cars at least half a dozen times....So why should I follow traffic laws when they don't benefit me at all?

So that you don't get hit by cars.
posted by vorpal bunny at 9:52 PM on June 17 [7 favorites has favorites]

fucking cyclists
posted by KokuRyu at 10:13 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

Kellydamnit: "What are the legalities with regard to speed, though? If I was driving a car at 20 MPH in an area marked at 45 I would expect to be pulled over."

I don't know why you would, unless you were doing it for no good reason. My dim drivers-ed recollection of the law is that, with the exception of roads that have posted minimum speeds, you generally aren't supposed to drive at such a low speed that it impedes the flow of traffic, unless that's the safest thing to do. I.e. you're not supposed to impede traffic, but "not impeding traffic" doesn't come before safety, or obeying other laws.

So a bicyclist (or a piece of farm equipment, or a horse-drawn wagon, or a truck with a wide/heavy load, or any other legitimate road user) is completely justified in doing 20 in a 45, if it's not possible to move faster than that safely.

The general priority of things is something like:
1. Be safe;
2. Obey all the laws;
3. Don't impede the free flow of traffic.

1 takes precedence over 2 and 3 (although you may have to explain how 1 takes precedence to 2 in front of a Traffic Court judge) and both 1 and 2 take precedence over 3.

Here is California's minimum-speed guideline, which matches what I remembered from years ago. I suspect most states are substantially similar.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:18 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

Every driver in San Francisco (and every other town in the world) breaks the damn law each and every day. Speeding, 'california stops', pushing a red light, talking on the cell phone...

Each one of them has their own "Bikers are worse" story.

42,000 people are killed each year in/by cars (not counting the environmental effects)
5000 pedestrians are killed each year by cars
90 people a year are killed by lightning
~0 people killed by bicyclists (with a freak accident from time to time)

More people are killed by Carnival rides than bicycles each year.

Stand on the corner of Market and 4th and count the drivers going 45+ running the red light in an hour.

The future of the United States should look more like Amsterdam or Denmark, and if it doesn't, we only have ourselves to blame for the environmental/middle east woes we bring on ourselves.
posted by bottlebrushtree at 10:20 PM on June 17 [2 favorites has favorites]

Is it really any surprise that, just as there are bad drivers, there will also be bad cyclists? Cycling is a fun way to get around, but I have real problems transporting a kindergarten-age kid and an infant in a car seat on my handlebars, along with a load of groceries, any distance, so I drive a car. And I suspect most of the people in cars clogging up the road need to drive to get anywhere.

That's why this entire Critical Mass movement is such a load of passive-aggressive bullshit. Assholes.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:22 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't know if it was this same ride (I think it was, same time of year), but a few years ago myself, and a whole convoy trying to get to a wedding up St. Vrain Canyon, were effectively run off the road by the cyclists. The road is really, really narrow in many places, there's no shoulder, and it's very steep. So you've got several hundred cyclists in low gear, riding 3 and 4 abreast up a windy road, at about 2 mph, and opportunities to pass are very few and far between (especially when you're crawling in 1st gear behind the bikes). It's not only annoying if you have to get anywhere (the canyon is about 10 miles long), it's also really dangerous for both the cyclists and the drivers. The bikes were weaving all over the road, and into the oncoming lane (downhill, 30 mph). I've been on that road hundreds of times in my life, but that particular drive was by far the scariest, and I wasn't even driving!

It's a terrible road for an organized ride. Period. Someone's going to get hurt real bad up there one of these days, and I hope the organizers rethink the route before that happens.
posted by cRamsay at 10:39 PM on June 17

On July 25, in celebration of driver’s rights, many cars will use the Left Hand Canyon Road, drive slowly and many may break down unexpectedly, blocking areas to the cyclists on the return leg of the ‘Sunrise Century,’” the anonymous, one-page note reads.

I will say the same thing my driver's ed teacher told me. Driving isn't a right, it is a privilege.
posted by IvoShandor at 10:54 PM on June 17

Metafilter: it's hurting America.
posted by univac at 11:07 PM on June 17

">Why are you between the car and the sidewalk? Or on the sidewalk? (Is there a bike lane? I'm having a visualisation problem here)"

"I think he's crossing the street while traffic is stopped at the red light. Cars can make a right on red even if pedestrians have the little crosswalk guy's approval."

yup that - sorry I wasn't clear - thanks fermezporte
posted by sloe at 11:09 PM on June 17

Hell, even the first auto mechanics came out of bike shops.

Also.

Anyway.

I know this is one of the dozen or so most reliable flamewars on the interwebs, but I still find it a little weird to see a lot of carping about unfriendliness to bikes in a thread related to Boulder County, if only because this part of the world is immeasurably easier on cyclists than just about anywhere else I've spent time. Wide shoulders, bike lanes, and well-maintained paths all over the place, and people behind the wheel are at least aware in principle that there'll be bikes on the road. Granted, I still encounter someone who's either careless/clueless or just an asshole a couple of times a week, but it seems like the rest of the country could learn a lot from this area.
posted by brennen at 11:10 PM on June 17

This thread could do with fewer jabs about gas-guzzling polluters; likewise ill-mannered spandex jokes do not befit the blue.

I understand why it's pretty hard to stay objective about this, but perhaps I can add a little bit of perspective to this discussion by mentioning the main strategies cyclists have available to them riding in traffic, why none of them are perfect or complete solutions, and why cyclists are often put in a kind of double bind beyond a certain threshold of performance.

The most theoretically "correct" cycling strategy is often known as "vehicular" riding, and involves the cyclist behaving as a motor vehicle, albeit a slow one. The rider, when necessary, may take the full width of the lane (although laws generally requires them to be as far right as practicable), pull into the left-turn lane when necessary, and—this should be obvious—stop at all stop signs and stop lights. Many hardcore commuters swear by the vehicular method, and it is certainly a good foundation on which to build a cycling strategy. However, it has drawbacks.

The most obvious is that bicycles simply aren't as fast as cars in most situations, and this can be a safety issue. Unable to participate in the flow of traffic the way a car can, the vehicular cyclist must nonetheless negotiate lane changes and traffic signals in a constantly-changing environment. Many motorists don't expect them to—for example—stop at stop signs, and become irritated when they do. There are times when the "correct" vehicular method is simply impractical, or potentially more antagonistic than a less by-the-books approach would be.

Competing with vehicular riding is "invisible" riding—the cyclist simply assumes they are invisible to all motorists, all the time. This is generally more dangerous and potentially antagonistic than the vehicular method, but—particularly to the rider who's been hit by cars, sometimes many times, while doing the "correct" thing—it can be attractive. Invisible riders are nonetheless unpredictable because they assume absolute ignorance on the part of motorists—which is obviously both incorrect and foolish.

Vehicular riding is the beginning; a good start on which to base a sane riding strategy, but by no means the end. Our shared roads require concessions on the parts of both cyclists and motorists—concessions that are sometimes difficult to make. For my part, I try to think of the travails of navigating the roads on either bike or car as a constant reminder that I live in an imperfect world, that anger at ephemera accomplishes nothing, and that we're all just trying to get where we're going.

tl;dr can't we all just get along?
posted by pts at 11:23 PM on June 17 [9 favorites has favorites]

jeffburdges: I propose bricks as the solution : If a pedestrian feels he's being "run down", he should trow his brick into the air and run, if the brick then hits the cars hood, windshield, driver, etc. said driver should be arrested for reckless driving. :)

I've always thought bikes should have a 'key law'. Basically, if you are passing me in a car, I get to swing a key at you as you go by. If I can hit your car without swerving at you, you can't do anything about it, because you passed too close.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:29 PM on June 17

I don't have a dog in this fight, but what annoyed me was this quote from the Larimer County Sheriff:

Don't You just love this time of year, when the birds, boats and cyclists come out? Well, two out of three ain’t bad.^[1]

His job is to represent all constituencies, and not to single one group out with broad-brush epithets. I left Larimer County in part to get away from troglodytes like that.

[1] http://www.larimersheriff.org/BullsEye/Default.aspx; 5/20/08 from the pull-down menu.
posted by univac at 11:32 PM on June 17 [1 favorite has favorites]

What's most troubling to me about a small minority of bicyclists is this notion that, because they're on a bike they're "special" and always deserve the right of way, rules of the road be damned.

And then when you hit them with your car they tear open and the straw goes everywhere! I hate that.
posted by nicwolff at 11:37 PM on June 17 [12 favorites has favorites]

I know this is one of the dozen or so most reliable flamewars on the interwebs

Too true. I've been reading slight variants of this thread online for what ... over 15 years? ..just depresses me that we've made such little progress.
posted by normy at 11:47 PM on June 17

> The most obvious is that bicycles simply aren't as fast as cars in most situations, and this can be a safety issue. Unable to participate in the flow of traffic the way a car can, the vehicular cyclist must nonetheless negotiate lane changes and traffic signals in a constantly-changing environment. Many motorists don't expect them to—for example—stop at stop signs, and become irritated when they do. There are times when the "correct" vehicular method is simply impractical, or potentially more antagonistic than a less by-the-books approach would be.

I feel like this is "common wisdom" that doesn't hold up. Drivers may get confused by an ambiguous cyclist who is acting sort of like a vehicle, merging into traffic while still mostly staying out of a traffic lane. But a bicycle that is already in traffic, that for instance moves over to a turn lane and takes up the whole lane, is being very clear to a driver. In stopped or slow traffic, such as traffic waiting for a light, a bicycle is just as fast as a car.

Of course this is more of an issue in roads where the flow of traffic is significantly faster than a bicycle. But these roads, aside from state highways, mostly have more than 1 lane in each direction. In this case, it's safer to act like a vehicle, and take up enough of the lane so that a passing car will be prompted to move into the other lane. This way you don't get buzzed at 45 mph. It's not antagonistic to act like a vehicle in fast traffic either when there's a passing lane available.
posted by cotterpin at 12:25 AM on June 18

cotterpin: That's absolutely true, and I agree. I may not have been clear enough in my conclusion. On roads with more than one lane in a given direction, assuming light to moderate traffic, a cyclist can generally take the lane, if necessary, without causing any inconvenience for motorists.

The conclusion I'd hoped to convey, but perhaps failed to, is that a cyclist has to adapt their riding moment-to-moment in order to both protect themselves and avoid unnecessary obstruction—and the onus is on them to do so, rather than on motorists to somehow "admit" that cyclists have just as much right to the road as them, which is a pointless stance to take.
posted by pts at 12:38 AM on June 18

I'm not a cyclist. I'm a fat smoker.

Personally, I've been irritated by more than a few bikers. But I've been irritated by far, far more motorists by both quantity and proportion.

I grew up in the Midwest, where everybody has to drive, so everybody's about half-way competent. I drove in Philly for several years, sedate and zen as the aggressive assholes zipped around me. Now I drive in Kitsap County WA, and get enraged for the first time in my life at ignorant yuppies (always yuppies!) who just don't give a shit about any rules of the road except their personal preferred trajectories.

Basically, keeping me happy comes down to behaving predictably. If it's a blind intersection, where 50mph cross-traffic doesn't stop, you should fucking stop whether you're riding a Trek or operating a Mack. If it's a red arrow, you shouldn't turn in that direction on red. As somebody said upthread, don't be nice and let me in--I have no idea what the fuck you're doing, and now I've wasted on braking all of my running space I need to get up to speed.

If you're on a bike and want to "maintain momentum" (ooh, ooh, can I do that in my car? It'd help save the planet! No? But I'm a really good driver (and I really am)), then you need to indicate your goddamn intentions. Zipping downhill at 30mph and then braking and cutting across my lane of traffic, you're a fuck hole.

If you're in a car and you tailgate my ass for two miles at 5 mph over, then pass me on the shoulder without signaling, you're a fuck hole.

And don't even get me started on the asshole motorcyclists who split lanes or exceed the limit by 30-40 mph. Yeah, I know your crotch rocket has a thrust:mass ratio well above unity. But you don't need to go 110mph on the public roadways. Fuck, I still don't know the top speed in my car, 'cause I've never felt I had any right to test it out--even on the empty stretches in Montana. I know some lifelong motorcyclists who will quite happily curb stomp your ricing ass for that shit. Come to think of it, I should start giving them some plate numbers.

I'd prefer bicycles act like motor vehicles. And I've happily ridden for miles and miles and miles behind bikes taking up a lane. I intentionally position myself in such a way as to block for them with traffic behind me. It's kind of inconvenient. But, any legal vehicle has as much right to the road as I do. And I wait until there's a safe time to pass.

But, I'm clearly in the minority on this. So, I understand the "invisible" approach. But when you're riding like that, don't expect me to make any concessions. If you're riding like a muscle-powered douchemobile, don't expect me to share the road.

Indicate your fucking intentions, no matter what you're piloting, or I'm gonna take you down like they did Bonnie and Clyde.
posted by Netzapper at 1:52 AM on June 18 [6 favorites has favorites]

As a driver, I prefer to have no interaction whatsoever with cyclists. The further they are to the outside, the better. I am happy, delighted even, to see them go through red lights that I'm stopped at, because it means they are out of my way for that little bit longer. I am even happier to watch them mount the pavement and cross at pedestrian crossings; much like motorcycles and lane-splitting, that you can do that seems to me to be one of the main selling points of the thing. When passing them, I generally assume they could hit a stone in the gutter or a hidden grate or a stick or something and fall off their wobbly contraption right in front of me, so I give them enough space to do that and not be hit. If for some reason I can't safely pass one, I'll hang back until I can, then give them a nice wide berth when I pass.

So on the whole I don't consider myself to be the sort of driver who is at all unpleasant to cyclists. My concerns with them being on the road are that they are unsafe (and somewhat annoying, though that's my problem not theirs, and there are a lot more annoying things on the road than cyclists, SUVs for example) because they are slow, and in addition to that, they are unsafe because they consist of a small and vulnerable human body perched on top of a couple of struts, some rubber and some wire, surrounded by two-ton-plus fast-moving objects. Floating along in the middle of the lane for no good reason, just because the law presumptively allows you to do that (and ignoring the caveat that applies to all traffic law, which is: "as long as it is safe to do so") would seem to me to be extremely unsafe, provocative, potentially life-threatening behavior. You are daring drivers to hit you if you pull that shit. By all means do it if you dislike your present life as a non-paraplegic, but don't delude yourself about the risks.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:25 AM on June 18

I think a lot of motorists just don't know how to share the road with cyclists. I don't. It's not that I hate bikes or anything, I'm just ignorant (this is no excuse which is why I'm asking the following). I'm mainly a highway driver; around town, I usually walk or take the bus. So on the somewhat rare occasion that I do run into a bike, I usually just slow down a bit, and if there is space, I'll drive around the bike giving it a wide berth. What do you do when you can't drive around the bike? This wasn't covered in driving school.

I grew up in a place that had almost no road cyclists, so maybe this is why I never learned bike/car etiquette. I think more education on how to share the road would help things. Added questions on driver's license exams would be good, maybe along with PSAs (like the ones that tell you to watch for pedestrians for right on red).
posted by bluefly at 4:24 AM on June 18 [3 favorites has favorites]

I opted out of driving 14 years ago after working for a year as an analyst for an insurance company. I worked it out that in a given year the odds of my being in an accident resulting in serious injury to myself or an another person was around 1 in 1000.

For me that means that every single year approximately 2 or 3 of my high school classmates will be injured in a car accident. I'm 43 and seven people I knew have been killed in car accidents. That's more than cancer, aids or even old age has taken.

I don't want to contribute to that number so I don't drive. Unfortunately, as a cyclist my odds of being injured are now actually much greater but the odds of my hurting someone are infinitesimally small.

These threads always feature some really weird anti-cycling rage that baffles me. I've been hit by a car 3 times and never hit another person while cycling. I've never been hit by another cyclist or even had one come close.

About 40 thousand Americans die each year in car accidents with about 3 and half million more injured. That's about 10 times the US fatalities in Iraq. Every year.

How many do cyclists kill in year?
posted by srboisvert at 4:39 AM on June 18 [4 favorites has favorites]

I got hit by a car on my first day of college! I was crossing an intersection in a crosswalk while I had the green, and a guy in an SUV decided to make a right on red. Plowed right into me, and I fell off my bike. He slowly stops his car and rolls down the window.

Him: "*sigh* You hurt?"

Me: "I don't think so..."

Him: "Good." and speeds off
posted by backseatpilot at 5:12 AM on June 18

> What do you do when you can't drive around the bike? This wasn't covered in driving school.

You do the same thing you would if it were a tractor, or a horse and carriage, or a slow moving car: you follow at a safe distance and wait.

This is why the slogan is, "bicycles aren't obstructing traffic, they are traffic". I don't intend this response personally, but there really shouldn't be any ignorance about this. It's a shame and part of the problem that there is. If there's someone else using the road for travel and you can't pass, then you don't pass, you don't honk, and you instead wait your turn.

And as I mentioned above, it is safer when that bicycle acts more like a car, and helps the confused driver by not giving him the temptation to make a dangerous pass. Don't squeeze all the way to the shoulder on single lane roads!
posted by cotterpin at 5:25 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

You do the same thing you would if it were a tractor, or a horse and carriage, or a slow moving car: you follow at a safe distance and wait.

Well that's what I do anyway, but since a lot of times the bike moves over to the side, I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do. I'll keep following slowly.

I still think more education will help. It's pretty obvious that you should look both ways before turning on a red light and wear your seatbelt, but that doesn't mean people do it.
posted by bluefly at 5:34 AM on June 18

as already mentioned this is a very polarizing issue.

My theory, bolstered by a trip to Europe last year that included some urban cycling, is that Europe has always had to deal with the bike as a common mode of transport, whereas in North America, it still hasn't quite made it past the kid's toy/elite sport/counter-culture level.

You can easily see that just by comparing the cyclists you see: in Europe, you mainly see people riding plain, utilitarian bikes, wearing city clothes, whereas here you see children and teens riding "toy" bikes, the spandex crowd riding titanium jewellery, "cruiser" bikes out on the weekend, bike couriers on fixies. Cycling commuters are more common, but still a novelty.

This difference shows up most of all in urban planning, as we all know. First, we got off-street trails, which are great, but not all cycling is about the Sunday ride. Bike lanes are mostly a step forward, but they're also often a marvel of stupid design, especially when the bike lane is carried all the way to an intersection, where bikes are in direct conflict with right-turning cars. People have been killed in this situation. It would be far better if the bike lane is merged with the righthand car lane about 60 to 100 ft from the intersection, so that the traffic is blended at that point and bikes don't try to pass on the right of right-turning cars.

Here in Toronto, someone mentioned the move to change Jarvis St from 5 lanes to 4, to allow for... trees... and bike lanes. If you know Toronto, you know how busy Jarvis is. This is a prime example of a stupid planning move. Jarvis is arterial, there's no reasonable alternatives for cars in the area, so REDUCING the carrying capacity of that road for the sake of bike lanes is not productive. It would be far better to take an adjacent street (eg Church St) and ban parking on it so that it would be a reasonable biking alternative. Or make Yonge st car-free.

The greater point is that in general, the urban design of most North American cities is not people-, transit- or bike-friendly (or efficient), and due to growth many cities are now car-unfriendly too. There are some hard decisions to be made to make cities more efficient by displacing some car traffic in favour of public transit, bikes, scooters, and pedestrians. Europe is alot further ahead of North America in this regard.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:48 AM on June 18 [5 favorites has favorites]

I've always thought bikes should have a 'key law'. Basically, if you are passing me in a car, I get to swing a key at you as you go by. If I can hit your car without swerving at you, you can't do anything about it, because you passed too close.

As a pedestrian in Poland I used a similar "umbrella policy". Drivers and cyclists there see crosswalks as optional, and I actually quite enjoyed the few times I would poke out my umbrella and make a nice scratchy sound along the side of a car passing way too close in front of me, in a crosswalk.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:58 AM on June 18

The most theoretically "correct" cycling strategy is often known as "vehicular" riding, and involves the cyclist behaving as a motor vehicle, albeit a slow one.

Is this not how all cyclists were trained? Maybe not - I realise that there is no formal training or licensing for cycling on the road; I was just lucky that my parents were very strict about this. My one exception is making a left-hand turn (or right-hand in Britain) at a busy intersection - but then I become a pedestrian by pulling over to the curb, getting off my bicycle, and then by walking my bicycle across the two pedestrian crosswalks like a pedestrian. But this is only if I really feel I cannot safely get across traffic like a car.
posted by jb at 6:00 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

Here in Toronto, someone mentioned the move to change Jarvis St from 5 lanes to 4, to allow for... trees... and bike lanes. If you know Toronto, you know how busy Jarvis is. This is a prime example of a stupid planning move. Jarvis is arterial, there's no reasonable alternatives for cars in the area, so REDUCING the carrying capacity of that road for the sake of bike lanes is not productive. It would be far better to take an adjacent street (eg Church St) and ban parking on it so that it would be a reasonable biking alternative. Or make Yonge st car-free.

Maybe the reasoning is actually to make Jarvis non-arterial and reduce its carrying capacity, to reduce traffic into downtown in general and get people on our awesome public transit. Downtown cycling is already very good and bike friendly - it's a bit busy on Bloor between Bathurst and Castle Frank, but you can always duck off to an alternate route there.

I've ridden all over west Toronto, and Jarvis isn't particularly arterial. Now Dundas between Jane and St Clair - that's arterial (still worth it to cycle there, because its the only road that doesn't have massive hills up and down from the Humber River). Or Finch Ave in the west end. Even little old Dixon Rd that only runs from the airport to the Humber River has six lanes of traffic, and I was riding along there by the time I was 14. So I don't think they are changing Jarvis just to make it more friendly for cycling. I think they are using that as an excuse to reduce the carrying capacity of the road.
posted by jb at 6:12 AM on June 18

I've always thought bikes should have a 'key law'.

A friend of mine was coming home from work last summer with a load of various kitchen scraps for compost when he got knocked off his bike by one of those big BMW sport-utilities the tourists drive. The person drove off (of course- rich tourists don't generally give a shit about anyone but themselves) and as he's getting up, another BMW comes along and the guy rolls down his window and starts bitching at him about how bicyclists should ride on the sidewalk.

Kid takes the compost bucket, chucks the contents in the guy's window, and gets the fuck out of there. They never caught him, either.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:16 AM on June 18 [7 favorites has favorites]

Let me get this straight. A handful of drivers are planning to blockade a planned, organized, and yearly sporting event that brings thousands of dollars into the economy to protest bike riders and general.

What are they going to do next, blockade the Boulder Marathon because joggers look funny?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:27 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

Wow, that link to the story about Jason Howard has made me angrier than anything has in a long time. A 17 year old girl was killed when Howard was approaching her at high speed on his bike, and instead of swerving he shouted "Get out of the way because I'm not stopping" then proceeded to slam into her. Her head hit the pavement and she died. He ended up paying a fine, didn't even face manslaughter charges.

To me, that's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying "I'm going to pull the trigger in five seconds. If you don't move your head, it's not my fault."
posted by autodidact at 6:33 AM on June 18

Thanks, pts, for providing some educational content. I think cycling strategies are a really cool field of psychological study. because of the complexity of the environment and the speed with which people need to respond to changes and disturbances.

I have a third strategy that I try and follow, one that I didn't consciously formulate until reading about old psychology theory from the 1930s: the "zone of safe travel" approach. Basically, you try and tuck yourself in places where cars can't drive, or drivers don't want to drive. This means huggung close to the bumper of the car in front of you in stopped traffic, 'shadowing' cars like a fish follows a shark (dead center of the right rearview mirror field-of-view) in slow traffic or when crossing 4-way stops, and merging across right-turning traffic to pass on the left at intersections. The 'door zone' next to parked cars is a total write off.

There's a great youtube video (that my OLPC won't let me look up) that follows a pedestrian comfortably dodging a drunk, aggressive driver trying to flatten him with an SUV for 3 minutes. It's like bullfighting - cars have a turning radius, and if you can get inside that and stay there, you can't be hit. Obviously with the complexity of urban traffic it's impossible to be unhittable all the time, but I find it a good principle to try and guide my riding.

On another topic to the cyclists who say 'why should I obey traffic laws'... this is a total red flag to authoritarians, so it's not surprising that it turns into a flamewar, but it does invite urban planning questions. For example in Toronto, side streets are mined with 4-way stops at every intersection and alternating one-way street loops, making them totally impassable. Why? Because of car drivers cutting out of clogged arterials and through residential streets, running down children, and requiring 'traffic calming'. So as a cyclist, I can't take the side roads without riding contraflow on one-way streets (if only 100m at a time), and I can't maintain any sort of even speed without drifting through empty 4-way stops. The alternative is riding on crowded arterials clogged with parked cars and taxis. It's evolved to a no-win situation.

It makes me pine for good old 1985 when I first rode my bike to school: grade 2. Back then, the Vancouver west end side streets were all 'courtesy intersections', and they were quick and safe even for little kids. In Grade 11 (1997), the city put 2-way stop signs everywhere, by default, so I planned zig-zag paths that would let me keep my momentum by keeping the right of way. Now, with 4-way stops and one-way streets, I can't go anywhere without stopping and starting every few blocks. The day that British street signage/structure comes to Canada, I will be very happy. Yield signs and speed bumps should be way more prevalent, and leave a little room for negotiation and adaptation.
posted by anthill at 6:48 AM on June 18

I don't think that reducing Jarvis from five lanes to four will really slow it down that much. On average it will add two minutes to people's commutes during peak hours. Look at the traffic flow on Dupont during rush hour- it moves along pretty quickly. Having the middle lane change directions at different times of the day didn't really make sense anyhow.

Someone upthread mentioned the idea of traffic calming, and driving differently when you're downtown. I think this is a key element in the debate. Many of the people using Jarvis during rush hour are treating it as an arterial route coming from more suburban parts of the city. Most of the driving they do, other than their commute is highway driving or driving in suburban areas with far less traffic (and far fewer cyclists). I think many of these people are as frustrated by city traffic of any sort, and tend to take it out on cyclists (present a visible, and to some, more vulnerable target). There needs to be an understanding that city driving is not like driving in the suburbs (or even in Rosedale). That, and people need to stop passing on the right on multi-lane roads. This is a habit that is especially prevalent in Toronto, and it pisses me off. I can't count the number of times I have been nearly hit by someone pulling into my lane without looking.

Also, they're going to blockade a group ride? Good luck with that!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:53 AM on June 18

Also, back to the topic of the post, is there a reason cyclist need to ride two abreast that I'm not aware of? I'm only used to city biking, which I generally do alone and for short distances. But other than for passing/other brief periods, why do bikers need that law? I guess I'm of the opinion that while bikes are part of traffic, they are not cars, and should remain to the right as long as visibility and safety are not compromised. But I could be missing something here.
posted by fermezporte at 7:19 AM on June 18

I ride my bike to work in New York City every reasonably sunny day over 40 degrees. My commute is approx. 6 miles, through the boroughs of Queens and Manhattan. I have been doing this for 3 years. I respect the flow of traffic, but I do blow stop signs and red lights. I have had a few close scrapes, and I deal with aggressive drivers, but I have never been hit by a car, I have never been driven off the road. I have never had things thrown at me. As long as you don't reciprocate driver aggression and ride defensively, pay attention to your surroundings and don't sacrifice safety for speed, you'll be ok. Granted, no one can anticipate the actions of every asshole in the world, but

On the other hand is my friend Jim*. He rides very aggressively, is less than careful, does things like yell at drivers, and kick their cars, etc.

He has been fined by the city. He has hit two pedestrians. He has been hit by cars. He has gotten badly hurt.

There is the possibility of peaceful coexistence, if the constituent parties would only dispel the notion that one is more entitled to the road than the other.

*name changed to protect the idiot
posted by orville sash at 7:29 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

I will just as quickly throw my latte at an offensive driver, cyclist OR pedestrian, if they stray too close to my Segway.
posted by orme at 7:36 AM on June 18 [3 favorites has favorites]

I have never been driven off the road. I have never had things thrown at me. As long as you don't reciprocate driver aggression and ride defensively, pay attention to your surroundings and don't sacrifice safety for speed, you'll be ok.

Each time I've had drivers be malicious, I was obeying all the rules of the road, staying to the right, and in general being careful. The problem in Maine is that "bikes are for fags" and therefore bicyclists are fair game.
posted by dunkadunc at 7:39 AM on June 18

A good chunk of drivers don't seem to know that it is 100% legal for a biker to take a whole lane of traffic.

It is 100% legal for me to fart on the bus, but that doesn't mean it's a courteous thing to do.

Amusing, but farting on the bus is not generally something you would do to keep yourself safe, which is generally while a cyclist might temporarily take a lane. For example, there is a street in my town, two lanes in both directions. The lanes are not wide enough for a car and bike to share. Additionally the right lane on each side contains no shoulder, but there are big storm grates at short intervals. On this road I use the entire right lane - it is the safest thing to do for all concerned.

I think the "there are inconsiderate/malicious/dangerious/whatever kiind of people and some of the drive and some of the ride bikes and some of the walk" concept has been covered enough, but that's what it basically comes down to.

Another confusing factor is that laws vary widely by state and even sometimes by city. In some places it is illegal to ride on sidewalks. In some places, cars are supposed to give bikes 3 feet of clearance when passing, etc.

I've biked to work almost 10,000 miles since I've moved to Maine on all kinds of roads and in all kinds of weather. I've accepted that most drivers are courteous, many are inattentive at times, and that a few aren't going to be happy just because I'm out on the road at all. I follow the laws of my state, attempt to be predictable as possible and carefully assert my rights to remain safe.

I DON'T worry about "setting a good example" or "annoying people" - because I can't control what other people think. Generally, I do think that by following the laws I am settinga good example, but I don't worry about it. I've been honked and yelled at by drivers going the opposite way on a four lane road - yeah, someone is always going to be annoyed about something.

(p.s. I do also ride for fun on the weekends - sometimes in spandex shorts. I'm writing this on Thursday so consider me "a guy just trying to get to work" but if you didn't get to this thread until the weekend, discount my words as the self-righteous rambling of a rich spanex-clad jerk.)
posted by mikepop at 7:43 AM on June 18 [2 favorites has favorites]

The problem in Maine is that "bikes are for fags" and therefore bicyclists are fair game.

dunkadunc, where are you riding? I've had my fair share of people yell something or other, but very few outright malicious folks.
posted by mikepop at 7:45 AM on June 18

Him: "Good." and speeds off

Very eerie in that it is almost an exact duplicate of an experience I had once while bicycling to work one day a few years after graduating from college.
posted by blucevalo at 7:46 AM on June 18

When you're in a car every cyclist is potentially an inconvenience.
When you're on a bike every car is potentially a threat.
posted by OHenryPacey at 7:49 AM on June 18 [4 favorites has favorites]

I have never been driven off the road. I have never had things thrown at me. As long as you don't reciprocate driver aggression and ride defensively, pay attention to your surroundings and don't sacrifice safety for speed, you'll be ok.

There's also evidence that some regions of the US have a higher incidence of road rage and driver inattentiveness than others, so statistically, it seems plausible to expect that even taking all of the precautions you list, you'll still possibly be more likely to be in an accident in one place than another place.
posted by blucevalo at 7:50 AM on June 18

Fair enough, bluecevalo.

But it is New York City. Not exactly known for rational drivers.
posted by orville sash at 8:06 AM on June 18

>: dunkadunc, where are you riding? I've had my fair share of people yell something or other, but very few outright malicious folks.

In the Blue Hill, Bar Harbor, and Orono areas, mostly.

In Orono, it was the kids with lots of ARMY stickers on their trucks.
In Bar Harbor, I never got swerved at but I did get spat on and have bottles thrown at me- rich summer kids driving home from the bar, that sort of thing.
In Blue Hill, which is rather bicyclist-unfriendly, it was the locals. It's a pretty poor community and there's a lot of pissed-off young people who never got to leave town. They like to drive their big trucks and have no qualms about swerving all the way across the road at a bicyclist just to 'scare them'.
posted by dunkadunc at 8:13 AM on June 18

So on the somewhat rare occasion that I do run into a bike, I usually just slow down a bit, and if there is space, I'll drive around the bike giving it a wide berth.

This is appropriate. Most cyclists do not actually want to hold up car traffic and will try to help you pass them as soon as it is safe: they will swing over to the side when they feel they can safely do so. Take that moment, if you can. In an urban setting, it's rare that you need to follow a biker for more than a block. (I say this as both a cyclist and a driver.)
posted by jeather at 8:13 AM on June 18 [2 favorites has favorites]

Honestly, the person (people?) distributing that flyer seem like crazy cranks. It's like being angry that a parade is coming through town! With the clowns and the elephants and the hot dogs... who doesn't like an elephant in a funny hat eating a hot dog?

A crazy crank, that's who.
posted by monkeymike at 8:25 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

FWIW I once lived off of the Lee Hill Road mentioned in the article. The roads thereabouts are steep, narrowish 2 lanes, going up and down the front range, with many sharp curves and blind corners. Technically, they do require some skill and fitness to negotiate in a way that respects all road users. Most cyclists do okay but there are a couple ends of a continuum who are annoying. Those who go way too fast descending, round blind corners on the wrong side, obviously not in control; and those who are way too slow ascending, obviously unfit, weaving from side-to-side all over the road. I had close encounters with both. The bad behaviour seems to peak during the broadcasting of the tour-de-france.

A sub-theme here is probably lower-income mountain types in their carrharts, versus city yuppies in their fancy spandex.
posted by carter at 8:36 AM on June 18

It's not just out in the boonies that there's animosity towards bikes. Living in The People's Republic of Cambridge, I get honked at all the time while I'm riding in the bike lanes and following traffic laws. I think part of the problem is that traffic is usually so heavy that any impediment to the flow of cars is bound to be met with hostility.
posted by backseatpilot at 8:43 AM on June 18

In the Blue Hill, Bar Harbor, and Orono areas, mostly.

I'll make a note to bring my full body armor if I ever plan a ride in those places. Luckily, I get off easy in the Portland area.
posted by mikepop at 8:48 AM on June 18

One time I saw a segway rider in California riding the wrong way on the sidewalk of a one way street who was not looking where he was going slam into a pedestrian. The girl had stopped, then gone back, and did everything in her power for seconds to try to avoid the guy, but because he was talking on his iPhone, disobeying a fundamental traffic law, and going at a brisk walking pace as he could while doing it, she simply couldn't -- he kind of swerved, and smacked into her.

I still remember the sight of her limp, bloody body as she was loaded into the ambulance. And I still remember the segway rider looking peeved while talking to police.

Yes, this is just an anecdote. Yes, cars are obviously much more dangerous. But I've seen people get struck by cars in city streets (yes I have) who have stood up and walked away. And I don't know what happened to this girl, but if you think there aren't people out there on the streets getting killed by segways, you'd better flush out your head, new guy. This isn't about freedom; this is a slaughter. If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is "poontang".
posted by Mike1024 at 8:57 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

>3-5 million bicycle commuters at the time of the 2000 census.
196 million licensed drivers in the us.
-posted by Lord_Pall

Jesus, could you try using a less flawed comparison? Watch this...

30 million cars out on the road during early morning commute.
175 million US citizens who know how to ride a bike.

>The future of the United States should look more like Amsterdam or Denmark, and if it doesn't, we only have ourselves to blame for the environmental/middle east woes we bring on ourselves.
-posted by bottlebrushtree

My guess is you probably hold that sentiment with the luxury of living in a city.

And for the most part, I agree with you, but it's just unrealistic. The land mass ratio of the United States to Denmark is 220:1.

If you're in a car and you tailgate my ass for two miles at 5 mph over, then pass me on the shoulder without signaling, you're a fuck hole.
-posted by Netzapper

Conversely, please pull over to the side of the road to let the trail of cars behind you pass when you're going 40mph down the service road.
posted by Christ, what an asshole at 9:32 AM on June 18

I've ridden a great many group rides and during those long stretches of meditative riding I often ponder the psyche of those who plan the routes. Understanding that some routes offer few alternatives, I still think that maybe there are some organized rides that just shouldn't happen. I imagine the views are breathtaking, but to plan a ride on narrow, two-lane blacktop with steep drops on either side seems daft to me. At least so long as the roads remain open to the public during the course of the ride. Surely there are other routes that offer similar vistas but don't endanger riders and bystanders alike.

Like I said, I've been on many many rides but I never repeat a ride I find hazardous, either in planning or lack of support. OTOH, don't get me started about commuting on a bike. I do ~36 miles round trip each day* on a combination of streets and trails and both have their scary moments. One group of people who deserve special mention are the dog walkers with their 20' tethers. The leash is to control your pet and at 20 feet, you're not really in control. Between the chasing and the clotheslining, I'd prefer the street if it didn't add four miles to each leg of my commute.

*Obeying all traffic laws, riding respectfully yet assertively, and generally clad in spandex (suck it, haters) because I dislike the chafe. I've been known to chase down cyclists who disobey traffic rules and read them the riot act because the last think I need is to have other ignorant bastards feed the hurf-durf car *smash* trolls in this cycling-intolerant city.
posted by Fezboy! at 9:46 AM on June 18

1. I worry about Boulder in particular and Colorado in general. Both the town and state have changed so much since I lived there back in 1965 and not for the better. Some of the comments to the article in Link #1 express the same observations I have been making since returning to the Mountain West.

2. As someone who has ridden/driven motorcycles, bicycles, cars and trucks I have to agree with those here who observed that Americans still seem to think bicycles are toys. Seeing the attitudes of most Europeans in action, about bicycles, only makes me more certain of this.

3. If the cyclists in Boulder feel to threatened by the atmosphere, come on up to Laramie ... we've got plenty of room for you to ride (just don't stay ... we don't want Laramie to become another Boulder!).

Finally, I fondly remember what the town of Dripping Springs did for the Austin cycling club when they sponsored a Century ride there ... it was a dry county and the town waived the law for the day ... free beer and BBQ at the end of the ride ... best cold beer I've ever had.

It IS possible for cars and cyclists to get along ...
posted by aldus_manutius at 9:49 AM on June 18

is there a reason cyclist need to ride two abreast?

As a Canadian Olympic medalist explained after many of his training partners were crushed and maimed: "cyclists riding in packs try to keep as compact as possible length-wise so cars can pass them quickly. It's more dangerous to have a line of single-file cyclists that goes on for 100 metres"
posted by anthill at 9:49 AM on June 18

Re the comments on the plan to reduce lanes and add bike lanes (and trees, whee!) to Jarvis St (Toronto) :

It, including Mt Pleasant Rd, IS arterial. Shouldn't be, but there aren't many alternatives.

Regardless of whether you agree that it is, you probably share my frustration that Toronto urban and transportation planning is done in these tiny fragmented fits and starts. The proponents of converting Jarvis St are pushing it mainly because it will make their neighbourhood quieter and prettier, not because it's an integral, calculated part of an overall citywide strategy for improved transportation. They had the idea, and then they went around thinking up how they could sell it. It's kind of reverse NIMBYism.

Toronto Transit once was excellent. Now it's excellent only if you are suitably close to the subway stations or a few other well-served corridors. The rest of the service is down to usual North American standards. Metrolinx seems to be an excuse to defer serious action for another several years while shutting up critics for the short term. OK I'm jaded...

(Sorry for the derail)
posted by Artful Codger at 10:13 AM on June 18

I commute to work by bike 17 miles round-trip - but clad in spandex - so I'm not sure if I'm in the hated or celebrated group of bikers... I'm lucky in some respects to be able to use a path for 90% of my commute and avoid most car interactions. Said path, however, gets packed with pedestrians, dog walkers, beach goers, rollerbladers, and tourists in these monstrous 4-passenger pedal cart things. It can get really hairy on nice days and I get so nervous about some of the more reckless cyclists going too fast in those parts. Yes, it's frustrating that people feel the need to saunter down the path four people across and take up the whole path, but going slowly and waiting until you can pass them is better than squeezing by and hitting someone. One of the great things about cycling is you feel this camaraderie with other cyclists. Then they go and do something stupid and you want to scream "We're not all like that!"

I also understand cyclists that don't want to practice vehicular riding, considering drivers seem to get annoyed with you either way. My husband recently got yelled at by a driver for doing exactly the right thing at an intersection. When you come to a red light where there is a right turn lane and you are going straight, you should wait in the center lane so that cars making a right on red can get by you. Then, when the light turns green, go through the intersection and move to the right as soon as you can. He did just that and got honked at by a guy in a Lexus SUV. The driver then proceeded to speed ahead, pull over, and get out of his car to hell at my husband. The gist of his lecture was "you're inconveniencing people." Seriously.

I also get honked and yelled at by drivers on a 4-lane one-way city street, because apparently the three other lanes aren't enough and they need mine too. Yes, I am taking up a full lane because the City of Chicago hasn't fixed the cavernous pot holes on the far side of the street and I'd prefer to keep my front teeth, thanks.

In conclusion, misskaz is a land of contrasts. I don't ride with Critical Mass because there are too many jerks, but I do support my local bike/pedestrian/transit advocacy group, Active Transportation Alliance, because I think responsible advocacy for non-automotive forms of transportation is necessary and important in our car-centric society. I also own a car and thoroughly enjoy driving, and am a regular pedestrian and user of public transit. The end.
posted by misskaz at 10:50 AM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think that part of the "bad cyclist" image actually comes from good cyclists, because unless you're a good cyclist to have a lot of specialized road skills, a lot of safe cycling habits and decisions are utterly mystifying, and appear to be unpredictable, stupid, random, and/or nonsensical.

From a motorist's point of view, two intersections can be identical in all conceivable ways, whereas from a cyclist's point of view, the safest way to negotiate each intersection may be completely different and quite clear. Or even the same intersection with different traffic patterns, or at different times of day.

Especially when it comes to hot-button things like briefly taking the lane; most of the times for which my doing so enhances the safety of all, this would not be at all apparent to a driver without years of experience cycling in traffic. Instead, it appears to be a whim, and/or inconsiderate.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:00 AM on June 18

My theory, bolstered by a trip to Europe last year that included some urban cycling, is that Europe has always had to deal with the bike as a common mode of transport, whereas in North America, it still hasn't quite made it past the kid's toy/elite sport/counter-culture level.

My corallary theory is why so many pedestrians have issues with bikers is that many US bikers ride bikes like US auto drivers. I think it might tie into a general more individualistic and, frankly self-centered ethos in the US no matter what a person is driving. I am a native New Yorker and in my city, there are pedestrians, lots of them, cars often take no heed of them, sometimes they do - fear of lawsuits I guess, but many, many bikers do not. In Manhattan during Rush hour, where the crosswalks are literally jammed with people, cyclists will try to plow through, sometimes cars do, but it is so rare to see a cyclist heed a pedestrian that I often compliment the cyclist.

For those holier than though cyclists who say that a ped getting hit by a bike is no big deal, well people have died as has been mentioned upthread, and while you are probably more likely to die by getting hit by a car, if you're knocked down to the pavement by a biker, well you will still probably get hurt. A colleague at work who got hit by a speeding red-light running biker got knocked down and she broke her wrist pretty badly. Sure she didn't die, but will the bikers who pooh-pooh bike pedestrian crashes pay her medical bills? Physical therapy?

Many urban bikers in New York (city at least) are not natives. Ergo their utter lack of toleration, sense, or even noticing that their actions affect pedestrians in a city as crowded as New York.

Case in point, I was walking across the Queensborough bridge a month ago which has a path with a line down the center to separate cyclists from peds. Forget that the paint is so faded I didn't even notice it at first, forget the fact that the cyclists were *booking* which is stupd to do with peds so close. No what pissed me off and crystalized my feeling that in NY at least urban cyclists are 2-wheeled SUVs is this incident which left a black and blue mark on my arm.

Mid-bridge, the path narrowed becuse they are doing bridge repair work. A sign clearly said that cyclists must dismount and walk because cyclists and peds are confined to the same narrow half-path. Not one cyclist did so and most whizzed by the cowed peds, some cursing at the peds. Of course I got hit when a cyclist turned a corner into the narrow space at about 20 mph. Bashed my wrist pretty good, and I got "Fuck you asshole" for my pleasure.

There should be a critical mas for peds who will (when the light is green, of course) jam crosswalks such that cyclists (and cars) will respect peds.


Also manhattan should be car free, thus more room for bikes. who hopefully will have less agita.
posted by xetere at 11:12 AM on June 18

I went bicycling with my mom the other day, and I don't plan to do that any more. She prefers streets with low traffic and those are the ones with frequent stop signs. Like most bicyclists here in Portland, she does not stop for the stop signs, instead treating them as yield signs. Many seem unaware. but the law here says that if you did not plant your foot flat on the street, you did not stop your bicycle.

She is horrified to see me seek out the busier streets (ie. the ones with multiple lanes, stop lights instead of stop signs, often a bike lane). I like them because I can time the stop lights so I don't have to stop as often, I can usually get my own lane, and there is always plenty of room for someone to pass on a busier street.

I am horrified to see the way she randomly switches between sidewalk and street and crosses the street as if she were a jaywalking pedestrian. She is the classic "invisible cyclist" alluded to above. I have seen her nearly cause accidents with wishy-washy hesitant traffic maneuvers and antagonize pedestrians by her (illegal) sidewalk riding.

The law is really simple, and I wish people were more aware: a bicycle is a vehicle, and obeys identical traffic laws. Bicycles don't ride on the sidewalk, and when necessary for safety reasons, have full right to take up a lane (ie. if I want to take a left, I carefully merge into the left turn lane, if it is a mixed left/forward lane, I am going to pull into the middle of the left turn lane so that a car cannot pass me on the left while I am trying to make my left turn; if I am going straight in a mixed right turn/forward lane and there are multiple lanes, I move to the middle of the lane so I do not have someone cut me off taking a right turn).
posted by idiopath at 11:55 AM on June 18

"eg, ban right turns on reds - every morning on the walk to work I have to take evasive action due to the head turned to the left while the car turns to the right."

That would be a major impediment to traffic flow. Traffic jams and gridlock would get much worse. Better to improve facilitation of bicycle traffic flow rather than impede vehicle traffic in a way which would be inefficient (more traffic jams mean more gas used idling the car). Well, for short term. Long term would be better to create more public transport as well and encourage planning of walking neighborhoods, for instance.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:26 PM on June 18

"1. I worry about Boulder in particular and Colorado in general. Both the town and state have changed so much since I lived there back in 1965 and not for the better. Some of the comments to the article in Link #1 express the same observations I have been making since returning to the Mountain West."

My aunt and uncle have a house in a small town in CO. I was considering moving up there recently, but they told me the local joke. It used to be a tiny town with 20 bars and one church, and now it's a tiny town with 20 churches and one bar.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:31 PM on June 18

I'd rather deal with asshole cyclists on the road than the asshole mountain bikers on the goddamn horse trails. I've been out on clearly marked horse trails with my very calm and relaxed draft horse and had these douchebags come whizzing down the hills as fast as they can straight at us. Even my extremely even-tempered horse (drafts are both calm and kind, making them ideal trail horses) gets spooky and freaks out when this happens. I've been thrown, bashed against a tree, and my horse has very narrowly missed being crashed into. The bicyclists' response to the situation? I've never had someone stop and help when I've come off, I've been cursed at for having a horse on the trail, and once, when I cantered after one of them to read them the riot act, I've been physically threatened.

My horse is 1600+ pounds of solid muscle. His hooves are close to the size of dinner plates. If you freak him out, he could hurt you very badly with a kick. It takes a lot to freak him out, but it happens.

I don't canter or gallop on multi-use trails, in fact I very rarely even trot on them because I know that a horse moving faster than a walk is scary to hikers and bicyclists. Cyclists need to have the same sort of courtesy when they're on the horse trails.

And don't get me started on ATVers. :D
posted by Concolora at 12:44 PM on June 18

Also, back to the topic of the post, is there a reason cyclist need to ride two abreast that I'm not aware of?

Most, if not all, of the charity-type rides that I've done encourage riding in single file. My experience is that packs of more than 10 riders in a paceline are pretty uncommon, so single file pacelines are easy to safely maintain. A faster paceline will overtake and pass a slower one, but that only takes a few seconds.

HOWEVER, on a climb it all goes out the window. Everyone does whatever pace they personally can maintain. Because pretty much everyone is riding at a different speed, you're constantly passing or being passed, Possibly even passing someone who's also passing someone else. Pretty soon your lane is filled, more or less, with 2 to 4 people across when riders are bunched up on a climb.
posted by turbodog at 12:51 PM on June 18

idiopath, there are a number of municipalities that have adopted a "stop sign is a yield sign" law for cyclists.

And pts, I think we might've read the same book.
posted by hydrophonic at 12:52 PM on June 18

I fucking hate (a) bicyclist assholes who do not obey the traffic laws; (b) electric scooter assholes who do not obey the traffic laws; (c) motorcyclists who do not obey the traffic laws; (d) motorists who do not obey the traffic laws.

When everyone obeys the traffic laws, driving is easy. The assholes who decide they're much more important than the laws make it goddamn difficult for us drivers to predict what they are going to do, and consequently make it one helluva lot more risky for everyone involved.

I've spent twenty-odd years practicing my driving skills, actively trying to become a better and better driver. It pisses me off to no end that jackasses who are driving Lethal. Fucking. Weapons. can't be arsed to do the same.

Grrr.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:00 PM on June 18 [1 favorite has favorites]

Cars vs. Bicycles, Motorcycles Win.
posted by Eideteker at 6:00 PM on June 18

Oops. It appears I forgot to include "assholes" in the motorcycle and automobile driver points. I don't want you fine folk to think I think bicyclists and electric scooter operators are more assholish than other asshole drivers.

Well, maybe the electric scooter guys. I hate them with a burning passion. They combine the worst behaviours of bicycles, motorcycles, and cars. They'll go from driving on the wrong side of the road, up onto the sidewalk, then through an intersection, and skip past the stop sign, and so on and so forth. I have never seen any driver ignore all the traffic laws so much as the electric scooter folk do. Gahd.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:24 PM on June 18

the law here says that if you did not plant your foot flat on the street, you did not stop your bicycle.

That's a common misconception, but isn't true (especially in Portland). The Portland PD have gone on record saying so (warning PDF link) Cops and Stops, Putting Our Foot Down

"Nowhere in thelaw is there mention of putting your foot down if you are riding a bicycle or motorcycle"

posted by bottlebrushtree at 12:24 AM on June 19

And then there was the guy on a fixie who got ticketed by the cops. So he took it to court, and the judge ended up getting to see him demonstrate that he could hold a stop for minutes without putting his feet down.

I practice the same thing on my motorcycle. At best I can manage a couple seconds of stop time before I have to dab. Still, it's mildly amusing.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:30 AM on June 19

bottlebrushtree: wow, thanks for the info, I am very happy to hear that. I track stand at red lights all the time, but did not realize this was valid at stop signs as well (by the way the rider I was complaining about does not track stand, she just slows and yields).
posted by idiopath at 4:35 AM on June 19

Artful Codger: I grew up in Northern Etobicoke, about 8km from the nearest subway station, in a family without a car. I don't know how to drive.

The TTC is excellent, and still was excellent when I was back earlier this year and riding the bus around some of the worse served areas in the whole city (the north-west and north-east are pretty badly off, transit-wise, though there are many people up there who need it). Sure, it could be better (subway link to York already!), but it's nothing like the North American standard. Toronto's transit is as good as NYC's, and better than London's (mostly on cost).
posted by jb at 6:14 PM on June 19

On a side note, I find the idea of a bicycle anything being barricaded by cars rather amusing. So, you're going to barricade a vehicle that can be picked up and easily carried around off-road with your vehicle that can't be? Geez, four guys with a couple of video-cameras (to prevent being run over) could easily trap your entire protest group just by standing in the road on either end of it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:00 PM on June 19

jeoc:

Why are you roller skating around my park when you could be rollerblading on the boardwalk? Why are you surfing on my beach when you could be skateboarding on that awesome halfpipe over there? Why are you eating fillet mignon when you could be having roasted asparagus with salmon? Why are you reading a book by Faulkner when you could be reading one by Beckett?

Your question is laughable. Mountain biking and road biking are completely different activities. Mountain biking is about reaction times, calculating risks, plotting a line through dangerous terrain, plus some minor issues of speed, endurance and balance. Road biking is you vs. your cardiovascular system and muscles, with a few minor issues about managing traffic and road conditions. Mountain biking hurts mainly because you get shaken around on your bike and having a good chance of falling off, unless you are extremely skilled and attentive. Road biking hurts mainly because you are pushing your limits of physical accomplishment. Not to mention how different they are as experiences - personally I prefer 25mph on a straightaway under my own power over 12mph along a rocky and treacherous downhill path after a car or chairlift brought me to the top.
posted by idiopath at 8:55 PM on June 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

Not reading 150 comments, car vs bike never goes well here.
posted by fixedgear at 7:41 AM on June 20

jb, either you're being too kind to the TTC, or my area (S. Etobicoke, along Lakeshore Rd) is the service exception. How long would it take at rush hour to get downtown (say...King and Spadina) from your N. Etobicoke home?

My area is served mainly by the 501 Queen St streetcar (or 508 King). Mornings, to downtown, usually not bad, except that it's 50+ minutes. Coming home, sardine-packed cars that often are too full to stop to pick me up, painfully crawling because of Queen St traffic and because street parking is allowed after 6 PM. Streetcars often short-turned at Roncesvalles without prior warning, dumping us at Roncie for 10+ minutes. The home journey is usually 70+ minutes. Takes the same or longer to bus up to the subway.

(further apologies for further derail. To atone, I will say that by bike it's about 40 min to downtown, and mostly on bikepath. yay)
posted by Artful Codger at 9:28 AM on June 20

Artful Codger - it would take me 1.25 to 1.5 hours to get from King and Spadina by TTC - and I've done that trip many times. Granted, the northern Etobicoke buses are more likely to have sitting space. But thanks for the warning about Queen street traffic - someone else had told us it was only 20 minutes from Royal York and Lakeshore to downtown and so we were thinking of moving there, but he was probably always travelling off rushhour (chronically unemployed). That said, it should be only about 1 hour if you go around by the Bloor subway - unless you are in the southwest corner? Southwest Etobicoke has transit access as slow as northern.

But you have to put it in to perspective: we can live in Toronto and work in Toronto without cars. I have met so many Americans, even from major cities, who are shocked that I don't know how to drive, shocked like I just said I don't know how to read. Where I live (a relatively small, but still dense city with public transit), there are buses every hour; it's faster to walk for 45 minutes than to take the bus. You have to realse that most North American cities have transit more like Mississauga transit - where it can take 3 hours each way to travel the same physical distance that in Toronto might take 1-1.5 hours.

Having seen the situation outside of Toronto - and how crippled I would be in most North American cities - I can't help but love the TTC. It's reliable, it comes often, there is 24 hour service. I have never been stranded anywhere (people can't say the same for getting from New York to its New Jersey suburbs).

Some European cities may be better, but I didn't find London that much better. The transit there is about 2-3 times as expensive (while wages are the same), and it still takes 1 hour to get from the equivalent of Yonge&Bloor to Islington and Dixon, though you do take the tube the whole way. Also, it's far more crowded and uncomfortable than the TTC subway has ever been; rushhour on the tube is worse than even the Queen car (which is the worst for crowds I have ever seen).

/I would feel sorry for the derail, but I enjoy talking about the TTC. also, I think the bike thing has died down and we have the thread to ourselves.
posted by jb at 12:10 PM on June 21

Oh - only 1 hour from mid- to not-quite northern Etobicoke to Yonge and College - I agree, King and Spadina is awkward because it's not properly downtown. And that's either way.
posted by jb at 12:11 PM on June 21

You know who else had pretty convincing anecdotal evidence?

Jenny McCarthy
posted by Balisong at 10:55 AM on July 1