Just Ignore Me
I don’t think I will ever be much of a bicycle “advocate” and that’s because I just want to blend in with the rest of the traffic and be ignored.
Is this so hard?
I drive a Nissan pick-up truck. Does this mean I “identify” with other Nissan drivers? Or pick-up drivers? Maybe back in the olden days when Volkswagen drivers all waved at each other, but no more. Those days are long gone.
All I ask is to be LEFT ALONE. Don’t honk, don’t hoot and show me your finger, don’t swerve, don’t do other stupid stuff that drivers seem want to do, just leave me alone.
Nobody appointed you you traffic warden to tell me that I didn’t make a complete stop at a stop sign. Neither did the last 50 cars. They all made “Texas Stops”, but you don’t complain about that and why not?
Hard to believe, but prior to 1980 or so, cyclists were pretty much ignored around here. Oh, how I long for those days to return.
Yes how I long for the days in the 60-70s (even drove in a Beetle) but reality is quite different today. The new normal for drivers is that cell phones, iPods and Big Gulps are necessities when they hit the asphalt jungle. Wouldn’t be a problem if you stayed on the sidewalks though.
Satire (hopefully)?
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/04/bicyclists_need_to_stay_on_sidewalk
“Ignore” doesn’t really work for me. David Meek was ignored by the truck driver who killed him.
I want to be accepted as normal and allowed to go along my way without “commentary” (or worse). That’s generally how I’m treated by the vast majority of drivers in the urban core. Less so in the ‘burbs.
There are things I miss from the good old days (mainly my hair and metabolism), and being a middle-class white kid was pretty easy until I joined an identifiable sub-culture (hippie-freak-commies) and came under the wrong kind of scrutiny.
Just being able to ride my bike without being lumped into a sub-set as a “cyclist” is something I miss a little, but by avoiding many of the BEHAVIORS of cyclists (and being an old white guy), I tend to be excluded from their ranks by the motoring public.
FYI: Technically, a rolling stop is referred to as either a “California Stop” or a “Florida Stop”… at least that’s what my Traffic Operations Manual says.
Why are bicycle paths created for joggers, roller-bladers, skateboarders and bicyclists and roads are created for cars and motorcycles and sidewalks are created for pedestrians?
When I took a safety driving class in high school in 1980 we were presented with a whole bunch of driving videos which created realistic but intentionally tricky situations in which we were supposed to react to traffic situations (with other cars, trucks and motorcycles – I can’t recall if bikes were included) in safe and legal fashions.
Let’s face it, we sub-consciously drive to preserve our own safety as well as that of others and that means we look for other cars and larger objects. We don’t necessarily drive to look for something as small and insignificant as a bike. That’s where Mighk’s advocacy comes in for the ‘3-ft law’ and ‘taking the lane’ BUT a bike (nor the person riding it) wasn’t meant to sustain even minor contact with a car and we would be lieing to ourselves as well as others if we preached otherwise.
Dennis wrote: “we look for other cars and larger objects. We don’t necessarily drive to look for something as small and insignificant as a bike.”
In order for a motorist to avoid hitting you, he or she first has to see you. In order for you to be seen, you have to be where the motorist is directing his or her attention. And as you said, the motorist’s attention is geared towards other big, fast things. So in order to be seen, you have to be where those big, fast things are.
If a cyclist is insignificant, then so is a stop sign; an adult cyclist and a stop sign are about the same apparent size. (And I like to think I’m more than “insignificant” when on a bike.)
Dennis wrote: “we look for other cars and larger objects. We don’t necessarily drive to look for something as small and insignificant as a bike.”
Who is “we?” Since I started riding, tens of thousands of cars have seen me and passed me without incident. Yet, I have seen over a hundred car/truck crashes, and just last year a semi smashed into the back of a school bus killing children. A stunt that got the truck driver indicted for manslaughter.
Just how big does something have to be before “we” see what is in plain sight? And from what you say, pedestrians should just stay home. They haven’t a prayer of being seen. Too “insignificant.”
Working similar numbers to Eric’s:
I’ve got about 150,000 miles under my belt, and about 2/3 of those were urban. If about 10 cars passed me per mile, that works out to a million motorists passing me safely (and more still successfully yielding to me at intersections and from driveways).
Unless I (and the many other vehicular cyclists around the nation) have unknowingly acquired some magical means of avoiding conflict, I’d have to think that incompetence seems to be exceedingly rare when it comes to motorists seeing and avoiding vehicular cyclists.
Is there any such thing as a “bicycle path?” The paths here are “multi-use” or “shared-use.” They are also known as “linear parks.” Why are they created? To give people a place to play with their toys. Did you notice, they how they have parking lots at their hubs and termini?
Recreational facilities are a good community enhancement. They provide an enjoyable place for people to be active—rollerblading, walking dogs, jogging, riding bikes with their kids.
They should not be confused for transportation facilities. Some of our shared-use paths offer a very nice alternative to roads, for cyclists whose destinations they serve. But they will never be a substitute for roads because they will never serve more than a tiny percentage of destinations.
Roads are NOT created for cars, trucks and motorcycles. They are created for transportation. They are used by VEHICLES. Bicycles are vehicles.
I am dismayed to find that I am in disagreement with Keri. Thankfully it is a minor issue. Keri said:
“Roads are NOT created for cars, trucks and motorcycles. They are created for transportation. They are used by VEHICLES. Bicycles are vehicles.”
Let me make that statement slightly more accurate. Public roads are NOT created for cars, trucks and motorcycles. They are created for the transportation of goods and individuals. They are used by the drivers of vehicles. Cyclists ARE drivers of vehicles.
I know it seems picky. I have been exploring various state’s vehicle codes lately, and it has struck me that the laws govern the behavior of the operators of vehicles on our roads, not the vehicles themselves. (When it comes to the movements of vehicles.) Bicycles do not have the rights granted to motor vehicles, rather, cyclists have all the rights that motor vehicle drivers do.
This has direct impact on the slow moving vehicle statutes and the far-to-right rules. A cyclist has all the space in a lane as that afforded to a motor vehicle complying with the slow moving vehicle rules, (that is, the left tire track of that motorist) if indeed both drivers have equal rights to the public space.
If cyclists are going to assert rights in the public way, it is only an individual’s right that can be exercised.
According to our founding fathers, rights are not “granted,” they are inherent and inalienable. The state can only take rights away, as all 50 US states have done with motor vehicle operators when it became clear that motor vehicle use was a serious threat to public safety.
In 1920 pedestrians and cyclists had free reign of our streets and motorists were less than 10 percent of the traffic. There were only 7.5 million cars in 1920, but they managed to kill 11,000 people; 3/4 of whom were pedestrians. The “solution” implemented was to restrain pedestrians, not motorists.
Walking, cycling, riding a horse and driving a horse-drawn wagon all fall under the right to move about freely in public spaces. Driving a motor vehicle on the other hand is a privilege that can be taken away. A license is permission from the state. I’ll take rights over permission any day.
To elaborate on my previous comment:
While the right to travel by human power is not explicitly spelled out, it is one of those “non-enumerated rights.”
The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
But then there’s the question (for us) of whether a bicycle is a vehicle or something else. Vehicles have always been roadway users since well before the formation of this country. So it would be expected that bicycles would continue in that vein. Pedestrians, too used to have free reign of the roadway until their rights were curtailed for the sake of “efficient motor vehicle travel,” being mostly restricted to sidewalks and crosswalks.
So as vehicle drivers, bicyclists have a right to travel on the roadway. But the states have put limitations to that right on all vehicle drivers for the sake of safety and efficiency.
Bicyclists have the RIGHT to travel on roadways; the state merely dictates HOW we are to travel. Motorists have PERMISSION from the state to travel on roadways.
In spite of the fact that we present the least economic, safety, social, and environmental impacts, and were roadway users before the invention of the motor vehicle, bicyclists are more restricted than all other vehicle drivers in that the default position is “as far right as practicable;” we are permitted to leave the rightmost side in certain circumstances. For drivers of all other vehicles the default is full use of the lane, and only in certain circumstances are they required to “give way” to overtaking traffic.
Mighk said: “In 1920 pedestrians and cyclists had free reign of our streets and motorists were less than 10 percent of the traffic. There were only 7.5 million cars in 1920, but they managed to kill 11,000 people; 3/4 of whom were pedestrians. The “solution” implemented was to restrain pedestrians, not motorists.”
You’ve been reading that book. When you get done with it, we expect a full report.
Eric wrote:
“You’ve been reading that book. When you get done with it, we expect a full report.”
Indeed. Fodder for my blog, which, by the way I have resurrected after a long hiatus.
http://mighkwilson.com/blog/
Mighk said: “…in that the default position is “as far right as practicable;” we are permitted to leave the rightmost side in certain circumstances.”
It’s the “default” only on the small minority of roads which have lanes that are 14 feet or more. The way the law is written makes it seem like the norm, but in reality, it is the exception.
Nonetheless, the law must be repealed. Bicyclists should not be required to share a lane of any width by default. We are the most exposed and we are likely to be passed with the highest speed differentials of any other driver. That we are the only ones expected to share a lane is heinous.
By “default” I mean how the law is written: i.e.: “keep far right unless…” even though the “unless” is actually most situations. For other slow-moving vehicles the rule is “use the right lane unless…” and the “unless” is the rare circumstance where the driver has to turn left or where lane sharing is safe and feasible.
The last few comments remind me of a huge disagreement on BikeForums.net a few months ago (which I sort of initiated) about whether the “exceptions” in most FTR laws were really exceptions to staying to the right, or only examples of when it is not “practicable” to do so. Those who saw them as real exceptions felt it was better having them enumerated in the FTR law than merely implied in the SMV law, whereas those who saw them as merely examples saw the FTR law as unnecessary and prejudical duplication of the SMV law. I’m still not sure which definition I agree with, although I do feel the FTR law is unnecessary and prejudicial. Even so, maybe it’s good to have it more spelled out. Perhaps the best compromise would be to repeal the FTR law and add the “exception” list to the SMV law for all vehicles. What do you all think? (I realize it varies by state, but can we speak in generalities as much as possible?)
I think that, whether for FTR or SMV, instead of spelling out the circumstances for not keeping right, it should spell out the circumstances when keeping right is required, since for all slow moving vehicles those are the exception, not the rule.
Keri made a great point to me over the weekend: that the FTR law, as a default, directs the most vulnerable roadway users to share the lane with the most massive vehicles.
Imagine if such a principle was applied to workplaces.
Mighk said: “instead of spelling out the circumstances for not keeping right, it should spell out the circumstances when keeping right is required, since for all slow moving vehicles those are the exception, not the rule.”
Exactly. The far-to-the-right rules are currently written backwards, making the rare exceptional case seem like the norm.
In general, the circumstances for keeping right are when ALL of the following are true:
* Cyclist is slower
* Outside lane is wide
* No intersections or driveways
That’s a fairly rare combination. Also, it’s hardly worth having such a rule since it would be typical for a cyclist to keep right in that situation, rule or not.
So it’s a rule prohibiting an unlikely behavior in an unlikely situation.
“So it’s a rule prohibiting an unlikely behavior in an unlikely situation.”
Well said Mike.
The only thing that law will ever do is cause law-abiding cyclists to be harassed by law enforcement and motorists for riding safely, while tricking the majority of cyclists into riding unsafely.
Bicycle as SMV may not be such a hot idea. I’ve driven farm tractors on roads in Central Florida and it was mighty scary.
One of the tractors I was driving did 40 MPH in high gear and even that didn’t seem to be fast enough to satisfy some drivers.
I’ve had less trouble when my pickup was obviously overloaded and I was doing less than 25. I dunno why, but they were more tolerant when I drove a truck like theirs.
Fact is, nothing drivers do makes sense.
That implies to me that empathy is a large factor.
I would not go near that place. Why is it they are always unfair to bike riders.
As stated in previous posts, I see the “empathy” factor as a main source for how other operators are treated.
Eric’s comment is very ironic that a loaded tractor going 25 mph and a loaded truck doing the same thing get different results.
I like the term “cagers” describing motorist in cars/trucks. It’s like a force field that will protect them, or so they think.
Cycling has made me aware of many things I usually miss seeing while operating a motor vehicle. As a result, I have noticed a “slowing of my roll” if you will.