NATIONAL AFFAIRS

Pedal vs. Metal

A surge in bike ridership spurs a new kind of road rage

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: zeroproof @ 03/04/2009 6:19:21 PM

    The bottom line is this, do the math. 4000lb car minus 40lb bike. Biker loses. When you ride bikes in the hood like I do you learn that being mugged by a gang or a car doesn't make any difference. I'm not about to get my ass run over because I think I have some sort of rights or right of way. I just want to arrive in one piece.

  • Posted By: BigDenver @ 07/29/2008 12:54:52 PM

    cjaneway.....don't feel so sad for our society.....most people simply want everyone to obey the laws....red light means stop....stop sign means come to a complete stop.....always yeild to pedestrians....alwys be respectful of others and their rights.....these are the same for riders, drivers and walkers/runners.....and don't ride between vehicles unless you accept the fact that sooner or later you will get hurt.....I ride most days and understand the frustration from drivers when I see other riders disobey the law.....come on people it simply is not that hard to stop at a light or a sign.....in a hurry or just too lazy to do as I do and complete stop each time.....bike paths are aalso shared with walkers and runners....yeild and watch you speed and always announce when you are passinganother rider, walker or runner......as I said earlier....RESPECT ALL.....an come cyclist I can not be the only one obeying the law....POLICE OUR SPORT......chase down that cyclist that is disrecpectful or breaks the law and let them know you don not appreciate their riding skills or lack there of and/or get enough information (type and make of bike) to report them to the authorities.....we need to take action to clean up the bad apples.....and drivers, walkers, and runners also need to do the same! CYCLIST take responsibility and obey the laws.

    • Posted By: cjaneway @ 07/29/2008 1:51:24 PM

      What makes me sad is is the polarization of these arguments. People on one side blaming the cyclists for being supposedly angry, liberal, elitist, spandex-wearing treehuggers, people on the other side accusing the dirvers of being fat, lazy, ignorant oil-guzzlers. All this kind of name-calling does is turn the issue into yet another slugfest over cultural "left" vs. "right," like abortion or gay marriage or prayer in schools. Will we ever be able to actually solve our problems as long as we see each other in these simplistic and inaccurate sterotypes?

      • Posted By: crashtestdummy @ 11/05/2008 3:54:53 PM

        That's easy...the overwhelming belief is, "I'm right, I know I am, you think different from me, so you have to be wrong! HOW DARE YOU BE WRONG AROUND ME?"

  • Posted By: ButtFuzz @ 07/30/2008 2:30:54 PM

    Frankly, I just don't understand why we can't all just get along. However, in the spirit of stirring things up just a bit more, here are a couple of arguments I keep seeing repeated over and over and my response to same:

    1. "I've [also] got a car and I pay taxes and [road-use] fees on it!" [Implying your car taxes somehow 'covers' the bicycle]

    A bicycle is not titled. Therefore, I (or you) pay no personal property taxes, periodic registration fees, periodic tag fees, periodic inspection fees and the like on the bicycle. Your argument fails.

    2. "I have a valid automobile operators permit!" [meaning 'driver's license'...]

    This does not NOR should not cover your bicycle, and just invites the observance that "Bicyclists are the largest group of unlicensed drivers on the road today!". Your automobile driver's license no sooner covers motorcycles, semi-trucks, or a 50 passenger bus for hire. NOR should it without proper testing and associated fees. Just because you are licensed to drive one type or mode of transportation does not automagically make you licensed to drive the rest. Your argument fails.

    ...now go play in traffic...

    • Posted By: crashtestdummy @ 11/05/2008 3:42:24 PM

      The main failure of these arguments is that they respond to failed allegations. Taxes/fees/money paid is not an entitlement to road use. I do, however, believe that skills training is necessary. But motor vehicle licensing is more about traffic laws and less about skills at operating the vehicle -- skills develop a lot slower than the licensing process, but we can't wiat to license someone until they have the skills -- how are they going to get the skills without driving? 6 months for a learner's permit is a joke. YEARS are required to get even minimally skilled.

      ...so go floss yourself....

  • Posted By: jtfj2 @ 08/01/2008 12:13:27 AM

    Cyclists need to realize that they do not own the road and that some roads were not designed with bikes in mind. There is nothing worse than a two mile long line of traffic on a narrow two-lane road held up by one inconsiderate cyclist whom drivers cannot safely or quickly get around. Bicycles are not the answer to our problems any more than manual typerwriters are to the energy crisis. Leave the bike at home during rush hour and/or confine your riding to clearly defined bike lanes. In the meantime, please press your local politiciians to help us all by building more bike lanes. That way we can all get along safely and happily.

    • Posted By: crashtestdummy @ 11/05/2008 3:37:05 PM

      Motorists don't own the road either -- share!

  • Posted By: hnesbit @ 09/08/2008 12:48:57 PM

    I own a bike, but I'm not stupid enough to drive it on the road. I also own an SUV, and I'm exactly stupid enough to keep driving it despite high gas prices.

    Now, all failing attempts at humor aside...

    I don't care if you drive a bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, moped, car, truck, tractor, or Ferrari--if you can't drive the posted speed limit and you're keeping someone else from doing so, then you need to GET OUT OF THE ROAD. As long as cyclist carry this elitest attitude that just because some idiot in the legislature granted them permission to ride on publiic roads they have a mandate from heaven to do so in any way and at any speed they darn well please then there will continue to be friction between cyclists and motorists. You can argue the bike issue all you want, but you'll never get any respect until you realize this fact and first give respect to others.

    But beyond that--are you people CRAZY!?!! A 20-pound bike versus a 2-ton vehicle? Give me a break. Pedestrians have had the right of way for years, but I make darn sure when I'm walking that any vehicle is CLEARLY gifting me with the right of way before I step into its space--and then I do so with wary caution. I mean, this is just plain intelligence--which seems to be largely lacking in the biking community.

    One final point. It's just plain wrong to mix bikes and cars. This is called the least common denominator. In public school it's called dumbing down the population--forcing the bulk of the class to travel at the speed of the slowest student. Why should traffic be forced to move at the speed cyclists travel? Make 'em pay taxes and build 'em their own little trails. Then they can continue to merrily plod along in their 19th century world while we move forward through the 21st century and beyond--and at a considerably faster clip to boot.

    • Posted By: crashtestdummy @ 11/05/2008 3:32:06 PM

      'some idiot in the legislature'? Likely the same idiot that gave you the privilege (NOT RIGHT) to drive.
      Roads DO NOT BELONG TO CARS. Registration/licensing/etc do NOT GO DIRECTLY TO ROAD MAINTENANCE -- they go to a general fund, just as sales tax, income tax, and property tax does. You don't get a bigger piece of road use because you have a license plate.
      Speed LIMIT is just that -- a LIMIT, NOT A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
      The REAL 'dumbing down' is having to explain to BOTH sides that they're not 100% in the right....

  • Posted By: crashtestdummy @ 11/05/2008 3:11:25 PM

    I didn't even bother reading all the other comments here, it's all the same, the other guy's fault. Cyclists blame motorists, and vice versa. BOTH SIDES -- GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! YOU DON'T RULE!!!

    BOTH sides are REQUIRED to follow the law, and WHEN, NOT IF, they don't they have no cause to bitch. License plates on bikes? Why? You can't get any action by reporting your fellow drivers by their car plates! And cyclists -- why o why do you think the laws in place for riding on the road are just suggestions, and that your fitness/socializing/convenience takes precedence? WHO CARES if it's 'a pain' to stop at a sign or light? IT'S THE LAW!!! and no, it's not only illegal if you get caught!!!

    I commute by bike, have for 8 years; I've been run off the road, buzzed, and honked, cussed at, targeted for trash and evian bottles; three broken-bone incdents, two on commutes, one my own fault (not due to disregard of the law, just circumstance). I've gotten into one fight along the road, and plenty of verbal exchanges. But I have a harder time blaming morotists when I see what cyclists do -- riding on the wrong side of the street, 3-4 abreast in the road, left turns without regard for traffic...you have responsibilities on the road,as well -- not just rights!!

    So, everybody -- shut up and do right yourself, else you can't blame the other!

  • Posted By: BoulderNon-Bubblehead @ 09/10/2008 3:07:36 PM

    I live in Boulder county, Colorado. If you think you've got problems in Oregon try moving to Boulder! Here the bicyclists think they own the roads and flaunt the laws at every opportunity. Try driving up or down a mountain canyon when you come across a pack of gaudily-dressed idiots (who seem to think strength of numbers gives them god-like powers) clogging the roads and making driving dangerous for every car unfortunate enough to come near them. Look, when I'm driving I'm just going to work or the store, puttering along, not pretending I'm Lance Armstrong hopped-up on illegal drugs riding the tour de France!
    There's a simple solution to this: make these bubblehead idiots get licensed and stick a great big license plate on the back and front of their bicycles just like us automobile drivers have to do. Then, at least, we could report their bad driving habits to the police!

  • Posted By: BoulderNon-Bubblehead @ 09/10/2008 3:06:15 PM

    I live in Boulder county, Colorado. If you think you've got problems in Oregon try moving to Boulder! Here the bicyclists think they own the roads and flaunt the laws at every opportunity. Try driving up or down a mountain canyon when you come across a pack of gaudily-dressed idiots (who seem to think strength of numbers gives them god-like powers) clogging the roads and making driving dangerous for every car unfortunate enough to come near them. Look, when I'm driving I'm just going to work or the store, puttering along, not pretending I'm Lance Armstrong hopped-up on illegal drugs riding the tour de France!
    There's a simple solution to this: make these bubblehead isiots get licensed and stick a great big license plate on the back and front of their bicycles just like us automobile drivers have to do. Then, at least, we could report their bad driving habits to the police!

  • Posted By: thirdeyetc @ 09/09/2008 4:27:57 PM

    At hnesbit:

    In Portland we usually have bike lanes, or cyclists try to go down slower traffic streets in residential areas where drivers are supposed to be going slow anyway as you've got kids playing in yards, and cars parked everyplace. I usually block them for, at most, 15 seconds before I am easily passed. On wider, busier roads, cars have absolutely no trouble passing me. They don't usually slow down much at all. You seem to be fixated on speed. Maybe cyclists are a blessing in disguise because they force you to slow down and smell the roses. This culture of speed is getting us nowhere in a hurry. That said, I think, despite these stories, Portland is a good example of how we can mix cars and bikes. I follow traffic laws on my bike for my own safety. Anyone who doesn't should be at fault if they get in an accident, just like if you blew a light in a car. If we want to be respected like cars, we need to follow the same laws. (Unless engaged in critical mass like demonstration).

  • Posted By: ireland04 @ 08/21/2008 8:42:46 PM

    The problem is two way, new cyclists need to respect and obey all traffic laws. Bicycles are vehicles. Auto drivers need to respect cyclists a lot more than they currently do. I'm a avid cyclist (predominantly mountain biking) and know that I'm supposed to follow traffic laws, but some of the new crop of cyclists that have recently started riding due to high gas prices have a hard time adjusting to bikes, or believe that they don't have to follow proper road rules because they don't view bikes as normal vehicles. On the other hand, car drivers need to respect bikes as equals on the road. I've had many drivers ignore me, or almost hit me, because they believe that I am in their way, and should move to let them go where they want. Point: new cyclists need to follow the traffic laws, and drivers need to pay attention and respect cyclists.

  • Posted By: ireland04 @ 08/21/2008 8:40:26 PM

    The problem is two way, new cyclists need to respect and obey all traffic laws. Bicycles are vehicles. Auto drivers need to respect cyclists a lot more than they currently do. I'm a avid cyclist (predominantly mountain biking) and know that I'm supposed to follow traffic laws, but some of the new crop of cyclists that have recently started riding due to high gas prices have a hard time adjusting to bikes, or believe that they don't have to follow proper road rules because they don't view bikes as normal vehicles. On the other hand, car drivers need to respect bikes as equals on the road. I've had many drivers ignore me, or almost hit me, because they believe that I am in their way, and should move to let them go where they want. Point: new cyclists need to follow the traffic laws, and drivers need to pay attention and respect cyclists.

  • Posted By: Lypiphera @ 08/15/2008 6:39:07 PM

    Bikers here in Utah are a HUGE problem, so i can feel for other states. We have no bike lanes, and the winding mountain roads are often filled with Lance Armstrong wannabe's. But when they start driving exclusively in the roads instead of the bike lanes, running read lights, turning from the middle lane or going straight in the right lane, etc, it gets out of hand. I wish there were more specific and strict rules to protect both parties- its grey area's that get people in to these kinds of prediciments... or just not following the laws in general....

  • Posted By: marcomania @ 08/12/2008 4:33:44 PM

    Both motorists and cyclists are responsible to obey all traffic laws. More significantly, both are responsible to a higher standard of mutual respect, consideration, and helpfulness to one another as cohabiters of their communities. We all lose when we damage one another in various ways, and we all win when we are mutually helpful. I am a road cycllist and a high mileage driver. It agers me when another cydlist I may be riding with unecessarily inconveniences a driver, and it also angers me when a driver unecessarily endangers a cyclist. The first is foolish; the latter stupid and short sighted. Education/awareness could go a long way toward easing this tension. I have seen a greater awareness of cycling safety in eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware since "Share the Road" highway signs have been posted on many highways in the last decade.

  • Posted By: bubsey @ 08/07/2008 12:05:12 PM

    Cyclists should be considered pedestrians by drivers and pedestrian laws should be aplied to them.

    • Posted By: urbl @ 08/09/2008 4:43:10 PM

      ...but peds can't cruise at 25 mph. Even a casual cyclist can travel much faster than a pedestrian and has vehicle dynamics closer to a car than to a pedestrian. Reality check, please?

  • Posted By: urbl @ 08/09/2008 4:37:45 PM

    Nothing new here. There have always been and always will be bad actors on both sides, but in general we're looking at cyclists literally fighting for their lives while motorists get upset about perceived wrongs as they sit coddled in their climate-controlled luxo-yachts. That's a simple observation after 22 years of being one of those Lycra-clad, smooth-legged racer-types everybody hates by virtue of his existence.

  • Posted By: GreenJuly @ 08/09/2008 2:49:50 PM

    Regarding ' wiseroption ' comment: "After all, it is a somewhat elitist sport & most of the lawmakers & law shakers are the very ones on the bicycles." I am a walker and find runners to be somewhat of an elitist group. They rarely stop in crosswalks, ignore red lights and 'don't walk signs' and besides they tend to be skinny, happy and are type A personalities.

  • Posted By: wiseroption @ 08/05/2008 6:28:18 PM

    For the life of me, I do not understand why bicyclists are given such freedom to control our avenues of transportation. My issue with this is that there are certain times of the morning, evening or weekends that this 2-wheeled sport gets in the way of motorists using the byways for what they were actually engineered for, TRANSPORTATION and they often present a danger to others as well as themselves. I mean, it is a road for God's sake, not a recreational riding course! I have nothing at all against bicycling, it is a great sport, past time, recreation, exercise, etc., but you do not see golf carts on the highways, do you? You do not see 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, or tricycles or skate boarders, do you? NO. They have courses to use. Why is the sport of bicycling different? Yet, motorists are taught to give the right of way to any un-motorized vehicle, pedestrian or whatever that happens to be in the way (except road kill). Do not tell me the designated margins on the side of the road are for these cyclists because they ALWAYS narrow in areas that make it impossible for the cyclist to stay out of the motorist???s way. They are simply not adequate.

    Operators of motorized vehicles pay large sums of money in vehicle & road taxes in order to travel on them to & from work, yet they are forced to give the right of way to a non-motorized, non-taxed sporting occasion that presents serious dangers to all travelers. Many times, I have been forced to slow to a crawling speed, swerved to avoid a cyclist on a blind corner, or worry about getting too close to a bicyclist in areas where the bicycle margins narrow. This makes the already dangerous challenge of driving on the roads even more daring.

    I say the laws need to change to force the bicyclists to designated courses just like any other sporting event or exercise programs, OR at the very least, implement licensing, tags & taxes to the owners of bicycles who use the roads, just like all other motorists. This might stress the importance of the laws of the highway to both, motorized & non-motorized drivers until we can find a solution to an ongoing danger (wider lanes for cyclists that cover the entire length of the road traveled), but I doubt seriously it will ever happen. After all, it is a somewhat elitist sport & most of the lawmakers & law shakers are the very ones on the bicycles.

    • Posted By: GreenJuly @ 08/09/2008 2:38:09 PM

      " After all, it is a somewhat elitist sport & most of the lawmakers & law shakers are the very ones on the bicycles."
      I am a walker and I find runners somewhat of an elitist group. They are in shape, seem to be type A type personalities. They rarely stop at crosswalks. I feel like they could run me or my family over anytime.

    • Posted By: Cyclingadvocate @ 08/08/2008 2:15:10 PM

      There are a few things that the author of this comment is not considering. First, some automobile drivers use the roads for recreation, not transportation (here in Los Angeles there are large groups of recreational drivers and motorcycle riders who use the mountain roads). Undoubtedly they inflict minor inconveniences on those who are using the roads strictly for transportation. Second, pedestrians often (probably more often than not) use public sidewalks (and sometimes public streets) for recreation, and undoubtedly inconvenience motorists in the process. Even so, it would be unconscionable to prohibit either of these groups from using public roads. Third, the vast majority of recreational cyclists own cars, buy gas occasionally, and pay their taxes, so it is unclear why they should not have an equal claim to use of public roads. Fourth, there is no obvious reason to accept the commentator's premise that the purpose of public roads is transportation only. Fifth and finally, the suggestion that cyclists represent a special danger to others is ludicrous. In direct collisions with cyclists motorists are almost never hurt. And while it is true that motorists may injure themselves or others in trying to avoid cyclists, to regard these injuries as the fault of the cyclists themselves, as opposed to the drivers who executed this or that unsafe maneuver in their haste to transport themselves from point A to point B.

    • Posted By: Too late smart @ 08/06/2008 12:36:28 AM

      Here in Portland cyclists are usually on the road commuting to work, on errands or shopping as essential as any auto trip. Also may slow traffic less than a car using no fuel that demand has driven to over $4.00 per gallon

  • Posted By: probike @ 08/09/2008 9:03:42 AM

    Much of this discussion reveals the result of 50-60 years of virtually nonexistant education regarding the use of bicycles. Many adults will say "I know how to ride a bike, I don't need instruction." Actually, they may know how to stay BALANCED on a bike, but not really have clear understanding of the laws and methods of safe operation of bicycles, This goes for motorists as well - motorists who inevitably pass their "understanding" of bicycle operation on to their kids.
    For example, many posters have complained about cyclists riding two abreast. Examples shown are from Oregon & Arizona statutes:
    OREGON: Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances: (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
    ARIZONA:28-815. A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations: If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for. a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
    B. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadway set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
    So riding two abreast is permitted in many situations - watch traffic long enough and you'll see that every situation is different.
    Road use taxes and bicycles. The right to use the roadways is not a function of any fee/tax structure. Use of roadways is only a function of the responsible use of the road. In theory, irresponsible users are stripped of their rights. If fees/taxes were a factor, trucks would have more rights than motorcycles. Convicted drunk drivers who owned many vehicles would not lose their right to drive, because they would "pay enough to keep using the road" .Driver's licenses requiring knowledge & ability would be worthless, since all that would matter would be payment of fees. Foreign tourists would be denied access to our roadways, since they do not "pay their fair share".
    Cycling Safety: Many posters comment on whether cyclists wear helmets or not. The point is moot. Although some states requ

  • Posted By: skxskibum @ 08/08/2008 2:30:04 PM

    what about the morons in 4000lb hunks of metal driving: drunk, inattentively, openly hostile, etc.? This article started with a cyclist acting poorly, reprehensible yes, but a cyclist riding like a moron causes property damage or the cyclist's death. A driver of a car acting similarly is sure to cause death or serious injury to a cyclist in cycle/motor vehicle conflicts. I ask drivers: is being inconvenienced by a stupid bicyclist a reason to kill or permanently injure him?

  • Posted By: saninj @ 08/08/2008 12:26:14 AM

    Only in the make believe of America can someone state with religious conviction that "roads are made for cars??? and that cyclists have no place on them. Ever been to Japan, Europe, China? It???s rather simple: The roads are for people and products, not cars, and there are a whole lot more ways of moving them around than one finds in the states. Guess what's going to happen as oil supplies inevitably decline and a few hundred million cyclists in Asia get behind the wheel of their own 4 wheelers? As gas prices break family budgets in the US, all these whining road-entitled ???victims??? of cyclist wild abandon will reevaluate their opinions - well, maybe not completely. They'll probably opt for a moped ;).

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse