Pedal vs. Metal

As a cyclist, I frown upon the Critical Mass movement. It is like saying " I am showing my right to use the road by denying it to you. Society psyche is on the highwire and this kind of activity plus angry drivers is an explosive mixture. If you want to show your right of use of the road, just use it, and obey the law. After all, the law is there to keep the order. There is always the driver who thinks the bike belong to the sidewalk, but if you use the sidewal;lk, the cop will fine you. So, what to do?Every morning on my bike commute, I am reminded about my mother by many many motorists. But I pay no attention.

To answer the question posed in the article, there are two clear reasons for
cyclists to express road rage:

1) In the United States it is de facto legal for motorists to kill cyclists.

A recent article in Bicycling magazine, entitled Broken, describes the story of a
cyclist who is mowed down by a distracted driver in broad daylight and in the
presence of witnesses: the driver says she never saw the cyclist and the DA fails
to prosecute because he believes no jury will side with the cyclist. The article
goes on to show that this is typical, even when a cyclist is killed. If the
motorist can pass as an upstanding citizen who just didn't notice the cyclist, he
or she is highly unlikely to be locked up.

2) Many people, including many police officers, do not believe that cyclists belong
on the roads.

A modicum of online research will show that police officers often display ignorance
of the law, citing cyclists for safe and legal actions, such as riding in the road
instead of a nearby side path.

In summary, cyclists know that many motorists do not want them around, that these
motorists have a de facto license to kill, and that the police cannot be counted on
for protection.

And you wonder why cyclists are angry?!?

While I sympathize with the frustrations of motorists clogged in rush-hour traffic --- and especially with those who encounter thoughtless or illegal bicyclists --- more rules & bureaucracy are not the right solution. Instead, the sensible solution lies in thoughtful bicyclists who obey the rules of the road (not to mention thoughtful & law-abiding motorists, too!) and adequate, well-designed streets with plenty of bicycle paths & wide bicycle routes, etc. Public campaigns & instruction of the young can accomplish the former far better than costly new, or expanded, bureaucracies. As for the latter, Americans will have to overcome their kneejerk aversion to taxes and pay for the services we need or demand from our government. We also need to think things through more carefully, and plan wisely, before we invest billions of dollars into new or revised transportation structures.

For instance, when constructing streets, why not invest now in paths for bicycles rather than later, after they're completed? Why not anticipate things prior to the situation becoming urgent? This is particularly apropos given that bicycle infrastructure is vastly less expensive than that which is necessary for automobiles; money invested in bicycling is, in the end, miniscule in proportion. Nor can anyone claim that such a vision is impossible. I have toured thousands of miles by car & bicycle across the United States (twice by bicycle & once by car) and through Europe (once by bicycle), and I can tell you from personal experience the advantages --- whether for bicyclist or motorist --- of places where both are accommodated amicably in orderly peace. The most obvious example is the Netherlands. An enormous part of the population there bicycles everyday in cooperation with an also enormous fraction of the population that drives cars. The fact that they do so comfortably, in far larger ratio than we as Americans have ever yet achieved, is proof that the vision is feasible.

However, we must invest to make it happen successfully here. Yet how is this unthinkable when a tiny pittance of money would have to be spent in comparison to the copious billions spent every year on the infrastructure for cars? And how could this possibly be impractical when gasoline has hit $4 per gallon? Even if only 10% of us commuted by bicycle regularly, the investment for a nation-wide infrastructure of bicycle paths (ways entirely separate from cars) and bicycle routes (ways that combine with cars on the roads --- but with ample room to the side of the road and not the pathetically narrow shoulders that so often pass for bicycle routes in this country) --- is obviously worthwhile, saving money, increasing health, decreasing congestion, encouraging friendliness, lessening pollution & making things fun (because, yes, bicycling is fun!). What in the world --- other than shortsightedness, bullheadedness & being penny-wise but pound-foolish --- could keep us from pedalin

While I sympathize with the frustrations of motorists clogged in rush-hour traffic --- and especially with those who encounter thoughtless or illegal bicyclists --- more rules & bureaucracy are not the right solution. Instead, the sensible solution lies in thoughtful bicyclists who obey the rules of the road (not to mention thoughtful & law-abiding motorists, too!) and adequate, well-designed streets with plenty of bicycle paths & wide bicycle routes, etc. Public campaigns & instruction of the young can accomplish the former far better than costly new, or expanded, bureaucracies. As for the latter, Americans will have to overcome their kneejerk aversion to taxes and pay for the services we need or demand from our government. We also need to think things through more carefully, and plan wisely, before we invest billions of dollars into new or revised transportation structures.

For instance, when constructing streets, why not invest now in paths for bicycles rather than later, after they???re completed? Why not anticipate things prior to the situation becoming urgent? This is particularly apropos given that bicycle infrastructure is vastly less expensive than that which is necessary for automobiles; money invested in bicycling is, in the end, miniscule in proportion. Nor can anyone claim that such a vision is impossible. I have toured thousands of miles by car & bicycle across the United States (twice by bicycle & once by car) and through Europe (once by bicycle), and I can tell you from personal experience the advantages --- whether for bicyclist or motorist --- of places where both are accommodated amicably in orderly peace. The most obvious example is the Netherlands. An enormous part of the population there bicycles everyday in cooperation with an also enormous fraction of the population that drives cars. The fact that they do so comfortably, in far larger ratio than we as Americans have ever yet achieved, is proof that the vision is feasible.

However, we must invest to make it happen successfully here. Yet how is this unthinkable when a tiny pittance of money would have to be spent in comparison to the copious billions spent every year on the infrastructure for cars? And how could this possibly be impractical when gasoline has hit $4 per gallon? Even if only 10% of us commuted by bicycle regularly, the investment for a nation-wide infrastructure of bicycle paths (ways entirely separate from cars) and bicycle routes (ways that combine with cars on the roads --- but with ample room to the side of the road and not the pathetically narrow shoulders that so often pass for bicycle routes in this country) --- is obviously worthwhile, saving money, increasing health, decreasing congestion, encouraging friendliness, lessening pollution & making things fun (because, yes, bicycling is fun!). What in the world --- other than shortsightedness, bullheadedness & being penny-wise but pound-foolish --- could keep us from pedal

As a cyclist and a driver, I would like to speak to this from both sides. Having a 15 mile commute on Dallas streets, cycling is not a reasonable option for my commute. Because I currently take a toll road to work, bicycles are not an issue. Previously, however, I worked at a different location and last year began to note this issue. Our streets have no bike lanes. A cyclist must move in traffic lanes. This becomes an issue in rush hour traffic where traffic signals cannot clear in the time allowed. One cyclist, and even the most fit cannot accelerate very quickly and none that I have ever met could do the 40 mph speed limit, can cause a meltdown on a four lane road in rush hour. Put several out there and then thousands pay the price of extra time and gasoline so that a very few can be 'environmentalists'.

I am afraid that I would have to support limitations on the use of bicycles on roads which are not equipped to handle them, for the safety of cyclists and motorists alike, not to mention the huge toll in fuel costs which is borne by drivers having to wait for them.

I realize this will never happen; it is not a currently politically correct point of view .... heaven knows, no local politician would touch it ... and that is a shame.

Reply to "jtfjz": I agree we ought to get more bike lanes. However, this commenter does not realize cyclists have the same rights as cars on the roads. So, cyclists do not "need to realize" anything. The commenter needs to realize the laws independent of personal opinions such as his "manual typewriter" bit.

I drive a inner city mainline bus and I also ride my bicycle to work. Do I go thru red lights with my bike, No., Do I go thru red lights with my city bus, not if I want to keep my job. It takes lots of patience to drive on the streets and I find some drivers take insult with every little thing. We need to step back and acknowledge that present rules are inadequet for the new realities. Maybe we need to have larger bike lanes and enforcement of bike lanes just like we have enforcement of 4-wheeled vehicles. Of course not everyone uses "common sense" but are we prepared to accept the consequences of our actions out on the streets with bikes or pedestrians.

America is ilprepaired for this abrupt end to oil. We could have been taught "transportation skills" starting with pedestrians as part of curriculum. Instead we are now thrust into the only sensible action having exhausted all the other possibilities. Cyclist must be treated just as other road users, and they should act like them. Law enforcement is one answer, driver re-education another, but we need to fast track now.

I stop at stop signs and red lights, but many signals will only change if a motor vehicle is waiting (sensor imbedded in pavement); Until a vehicle pulls up alongside one has a long wait for a sigmal change. Some signals cycle so rapidly a cyclist has insufficient time to clear the intersection. Some signals cycle sufficiently slowly to frustrate motorist patience. Sitting, engine idling at an intersection with no cross traffic waiting for a green light is frustrating.
rgriner@sbcglobalcom

"Bicycles probably cause close to zero wear and tear of public roadways, so why should they be forced to pay for the wear and tear caused by larger..."

Err, because the road cost some defineable amount to build in the first place. You want to ride on it? You should pay for it. Doesn't matter if you're tearing it up or not...

" whereas almost any 8-year old kid can operate a bicycle with relative safety. "

Why is this, or your, 8 year old allowed to operate this bicycle on the streets. Don't you see some kind of fundamental flaw in this? And just what is 'relative safety'? Only gets hit by a car 5 times in 100 trips?

I live in Tennessee, and recreational cyclists show the worst examples of road rage I've ever seen. They yell, curse, and flip drivers off, and a visitor came to my house one day, parked his truck at the curb, and a cyclist spit into his window because he dared to park on the street. What I see is a massive amount of selfishness and self-righteousness as bikers have taken their slow-moving vehicles and bullied motorists into avoiding the right lane completely as they have ridden two, three, and even four abreast. It's a form of urban bullying, taken straight out of the playground and onto the road.

Actually there is not a new road rage; it's the same old road rage. I mostly use a bicycle and avoid most of it, but when I drive occasionally I am shocked by the hostility and aggression shown by motorists to one another. I guess some of the politicized bicyclists are being infected by the hostility of the environment they're struggling with.

Cyclists keep pushing that they have the legal "RIGHT" to the road and that they are "better" than drivers. I am on cycling enthusiast who deeply resents the cycling community's arrogance and screwball logic. I was the kid who chose to ride my bike when I could have taken the bus. I love my bikes, but now I am embarrassed for my neighbors to see me ride. Get real folks: technically bikes have the right and the history, but the truth is that the roads would not exist the way the do if they weren't built for and paid for by cars. You can pass all the laws you want and levy all the fines in the world but it won't change the reality that the majority of drivers KNOW they own the road. Until cyclists can ride in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic they will continue to piss off drivers because they are taking from the drivers something they believe they own. My need to ensure my personal safety requires that I ALWAYS ride as if I am a guest on the road. How you ride is your business... until it pisses some driver off and he runs me or my family off the road. Please, please, dial down the arrogance and insane Critical Mass mentality so the rest of us can get back to using these truly marvelous machines. Bicycles can be incredibly positive but cyclists have made they so ugly. Such a waste.

Wow, the myths about transportation are just flying.
- Vehicle registration fees pay only for the cost of administering the license. Licensing cyclists would not generate any money, and might actually cost money.
- In the U.S., roads were originally paved in response to activism by CYCLISTS. Look into the history of the League of American Wheelmen to see what I'm talking about. Therefore, "roads are primarily for cyclists" is just as valid a statement as "roads are primarily for cars" since, after all, cyclists were there first.
- The only car-free cyclists who are NOT subsidizing transportation for motorists are homeless and jobless, and riding on freeways. Fuel tax pays for only a fraction of transportation infrastructure, and mostly highways and freeways. Much of it is paid from income and sales taxes, which we all pay. A study found that a cyclist with average income and average miles travelled (I have no car and a few months ago was working as an engineer at Intel) subsid9izes a motorist with average income and avetage miles travelled. Bikes cause a thousand times less wear on roads, and don't need anywhere near the infrastructure. What does a car parking space cost to build, and what does it fcost to installa bike parking rack on a sidewalk? Not to mention, the hidden costs from automobiles: increawse3d health care from pollution, military support for oil companies...
Oh wow, the editor for this blog is HORRIBLE.

I both ride several bicycles, own a Harley and several automobiles. I think it's important for our national economic security that there are alternative transportation options for all citizens, in order for them to conduct their daily business. I believe it is also imperative that all users of public roadways obey the laws governing such use. In Wisconsin, that means "slower traffic keep to the right." Motorists as well as bycylists ignore this law, despite reminder road signs. There is also a big problem here with motorists as well as bicyclists ignoring stop signs and lights, imperiling the safety of others. I see this as a sign of the "me" culture, rather than the idea of prior generations that we are living in a cooperative society.

One of my pet peeves is the cyclist who ignores available, NON-OCCUPIED off road bikes paths in favor of riding in heavy traffic on some of the busiest commuter roads, that have no shoulders, during rush hours, and failing to move to the right. As a cyclist, I actively seek out routes that allow me to enjoy my ride in safety by using the designated bike paths and lesser travelled streets. Why tempt fate when a better, more enjoyable alternative is available? When an alternative is not available, that's a different story, but that is also not often the case. I'd like to see municipalities hand out tickets to cyclists who fail to use available bike paths, that we have built at no little expense all over my city, for that purpose. These paths are literally deserted but I'm often stuck behind a bicyclist riding in the road, right next to an empty bike path, in a "no passing" zone, in heavy traffic with a string of vehicles backed up for a half mile. I just don't get that--