First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by applying a kid's natural understanding but (almost) from physical principles, e.g. conservation of angular momentum (which I recently read from physics exchange is not how bikes work). So my comments are an outsider's view to bikers.

I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Bikers often say that they should be treated on par with cars (in matters of passing, etc.), but they themselves operate somewhere between vehicles and pedestrians, combining the worse characteristics of each. I have observed many bikers not to stop at stop signs or red lights, because, you know, they're for cars, jeopardizing pedestrians. A 90kg man on a bike moving fast is an object you don't want to run into when you're walking. In parks (e.g. Chicago's long lake shore), although they should share their lane with people strolling and child strollers, they go about at high speeds. Many bikers ignore signs where bikes are prohibited on sidewalks and ride them among people.

And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? They are saving gas, etc. Now, this, of course, is true, but doesn't give them precedence over all other lifeforms on sidewalks.

Next time you don your cool biker's outfit and feeling totally Armstrong, please try to remember us, lowly people trying to share the sidewalks and streets with you.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen are amazing: as a cyclist you feel completely respected and the sheer numbers of you give a sense of legitimacy. Your own traffic lights and true cycle lanes lead to really safe transport, and you feel like a separate part of the system: not a car or a pedestrian. As such, you feel like you give the proper attention to car and pedestrian traffic and will stick to the proper safe rules.

Now the US cities? You feel like you are part of a dangerous new thing, the cars are out to get you and pedestrians don't even consider you might be there either. Pedestrians walk on the cycle lanes (because there are so few of them I guess it's not part of city consciousness) and yes, it is easy to have the feeling like you've got a certain right to run lights and weave through a couple of lanes (because more often than not there are potholes next to the curb).

My hope is that US cities just barrel forward with making more cycle lanes. The safer you make it for cyclists the less risks they have to take, and the more cycle traffic there are the more awareness in general, making it even safer.

I'd say London, Paris and Barcelona are somewhere in between, I mention them as examples of cities moving towards greater cycle density which I've seen transform over the last 10 years with my own eyes, for the better.

I point this out only because saying it's cultural leads some folks to believe that if their city isn't currently bike/pedestrian friendly, it never will be. Too many cities in the US are simply heavily biased in their current setup towards cars yet everyone wonders why there's a traffic jam at rush hour.

If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side.

As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as a driver, to start looking at other drivers (including perhaps yourself) and noting the violations, especially speed limit violations.

For instance, it's a fact that on my way up to work, every driver (including me) is breaking the speed limit (65 in a 60). Almost without exception, every day. On a street near where I live, it's very common to see people driving 40 in a 35 (not including me).

Where's the outrage at these drivers?

I think part of the problem is that most urban pedestrians have fully internalized the threat model of bad drivers. Look both ways before crossing the street, don't assume that the driver sees you, cars are generally found on the roads, etc. On the other hand, we haven't fully internalized the threat model of bad bikers. Sometimes they're on the sidewalk, sometimes they're blowing through stop signs alongside a stopped car (so the average pedestrian thinks it's safe because the only thing that could hit him is stopped at the intersection). So bad bikers are more noticeable (to me at least) because I've never had a close call with a bad driver while walking. But both the biker things I described were near-collisions that have happened to me.

Where I'm from (Chicago/ Milwaukee) you're lucky if traffic's only going 70 in a 50/55.

Seattle is like this in a few spots.

> Where I'm from (Chicago/ Milwaukee) you're lucky if traffic's only going 70 in a 50/55.

I grew up in Green Bay, WI. I know exactly what you're thinking. :)

Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.

I'm not sure what your anger has to do with doing 65 in a 60 -- it seems like you might be angry at drivers, full stop. :)

You're right, the "65 in a 60" was a rhetorical device. I used it, of course, because it's a law that so many people break.

But seriously, rhetorical devices aside: speeding in residential districts is a real problem for pedestrian (and driver, and cyclist) safety. And I think that's pretty clear.

Why don't we talk about how consistently cyclists obey posted speed limits? ;-)

I have observed (and swerved to avoid) many pedestrians who don't use crosswalks, ignore crossing signals (it is not OK to start walking when the "don't walk" is flashing") , and walk right in front of bicycles in a bike lane with a green light, all because, you know, rules don't apply to pedestrians. A 90kg man crossing the street is not something you want to run into when you're cycling. Cyclists don't "win" that collision in the same way a car wins a collision with either. Many pedestrians happily clog lanes that are clearly designated for cycling only, despite a clearly marked pedestrian lane being 3 feet to the left or right. (Vassar street in cambridge, MA is my favorite example of this.)

Next time you get upset about rouge bikers, remember to look around for rouge pedestrians too. I know I have to, because they sure as heck aren't looking where they're going...

When I see a cyclist run a stop sign in front of me (and I always watch for this to happen), I think to myself: "if that was a pedestrian, they wouldn't have even had to stop at all, and would have taken a lot longer to cross leaving me waiting longer... so why be annoyed?"

But perhaps I can say this more easily because I both drive and cycle in a busy downtown area.

God forbid any of these picky, sensitive, rage-filled drivers drive in a country where not even cars follow simple rules like "staying in the lane"...

And before you start, it's not even remotely comparable for a car. In a car, you're essentially in a sensory-deprivation chamber, and you're several feet farther from the intersection — the difference this makes to your situational awareness is impossible to overstate.

On a bike, I have full range of vision, full hearing faculties (ride a bike for awhile, you'll be amazed at how much situational awareness you have from your ears alone), and the danger I pose to others in case of a misdjudgment is miniscule: either I'm the one who gets plastered by a car, or in the case of an unexpected pedestrian, my stopping distance is perhaps three feet.

I've done this for years and haven't had so much as a close call. On the other hand, I'm _far_ more concerned about pedestrians who step out into the road without looking because they don't hear a car coming. On the Georgia State campus, this happens to me maybe once a week.

In short, the time and effort devoted to this topic is nothing short of insane given the miniscule numbers of people affected. The number of people killed by _safe and lawful_ drivers per passenger-mile, per passenger-trip, or any other weighted measure is absolutely staggering compared to even the most dangerous cyclists out there.

But your point is completely irrelevant regardless. The existence of people who blow through red lights regardless of oncoming traffic does not make people who carefully and deliberately go through a red light with no oncoming traffic dangerous.

Making as big a deal of it as you have been is insane. Your thinking is no different than those who argue that vaccines are dangerous due to increased incidence of autism. Even _if_ it were true, its importance is still overwhelmed by the sheer number of lives saved compared to the alternative.

I used to live in Seattle, though, which had a lot fewer cyclists, and drivers in general were not used to watching out for bikes, or understanding cyclists' behavior in traffic. So, there, I had a completely different mindset. I saw motor traffic and traffic laws, including lights, stop signs, etc. as obstacles through which to navigate. I had to always be vigilant about where cars were, where they were going, etc. I always had to take care to see if there was cross-traffic (including pedestrian) coming at intersections or not. I didn't really consider myself part of traffic so much, because most drivers didn't.*

To be fair, part of it was that the elevation changes in Seattle are so drastic that keeping momentum through intersections was a lot more important. And it's true that this is the attitude that many cyclists have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JZgBLKMTs

* The somewhat paradoxical part about this is that I've actually had more traffic 'incidents' with cars here in Portland. This is because the abundant bike lanes and friendly drivers don't require my full vigilance all the time. Which is obviously not true, but it feels that way. I let my guard down in a way that I shouldn't, and obviously couldn't in Seattle, but it's easy to get lazy here.

  > And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these
  > guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right?

A lot of people have very visceral reactions to cyclists:

  I saw some guy on a bike doing something dangerous, therefore
  all bikes must be banned and/or all/most cyclists are evil demons.

You argument in general, seems to be about cycle-pedestrian collisions/dangers. If we get rid of bicycle lanes, then we are either advocating that all cyclists use the sidewalk or the street. In this case, you'll either end up with either more pedestrians being hit by cyclists or more cyclists hit by cars. In either case, as the number of cyclists increases, this doesn't scale.

The problem city planners are having is that they want to be "bike friendly" in every way except educating road users. Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe. Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do, and no stripe on the road is ever going to do that.

We need drivers education classes that cover driving from the perspective of a cyclist. This will ensure that when drivers want to ride their bike, they do it safely, and it will ensure that drivers know to share the road with bicycles. (I would take it a step further and require licensing for bicycle-only drivers, but that is too unpopular to ever happen.)

  > Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe.
  > Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do

  > require licensing for bicycle-only drivers

This is chaos. The cyclists are just doing what the other vehicles do.

(Also, you can't be surprised that there are cyclists on the Lakefront Trail. If they ride on the streets, their average speed goes down to approximately walking speed because the traffic lights are timed for people going 35, not 20. If I ride a Roosevelt / Damen / Fullerton / Wells loop, it takes well over an hour and a half and is about 12 miles. If I ride from the museum campus up to the end of the Lakefront Trail and back, that's 20 miles and only takes an hour. If you want to be safe as a pedestrian, either ban cyclists completely or ask for them to widen the trail. "Slower traffic keep right" largely works, it's just that the trail is very narrow in a few key places.

My solution is to avoid the trail if it's a day where people are going to be having picnics in the middle of the road, which is basically only warm weekend days after noon. Any other time, nobody uses the trail and it's perfectly safe for cyclists to ride fast on.)

In my experience on trails (including the lakefront trail in Chicago) people on bikes tend to understand this, runners/joggers are usually pretty good about it, and people going for a walk are god-awful at it. I don't mind people going slow (its frustrating because I'm commuting not recreational riding) but when you have a group of walkers going four wide on one of the only trails in the city designated for bikes (downtown there's a separate walkway for pedestrians closer to the lake) blocking all traffic, and getting upset with you when you try to pass them that's beyond obnoxious.

P.S. this applies on normal sidewalks as well (also escalators, moving walkways, city life in general). Unless your the only one in an area, walk in a straight line and not 4-wide so people going faster can get around you and people going the other direction don't have to stop and wait for you to run into them.

</rant>

Personally, I don't believe in advocating for bikeways for this reason. Bikes will never get to use them, and if they cross traffic at all, they are death traps (because drivers don't look for objects moving as fast as bicycles on the sidewalk when they are turning). The only exception is the lakefront trail because it has a total of 12 street crossings in 20 miles (4 of them in the last mile of the north side, two that have essentially no traffic, and two in the last mile on the south side). This property makes it safe to use. All it needs is a really nice running path and sidewalk closer to the lake (so that pedestrians won't even want to use it), and finally you have a bicycle expressway, one of the few places anything in Chicago can go 10 miles in 30 minutes. This will never happen, though, because it will cost money and because the recreational cyclists will force the pedestrians off the pedestrian-only part onto the bike-only part. Sigh.

I think the best general solution is what Chicago does: a lot of streets have a picture of a bicycle painted onto the right traffic lane and signs that say "shared lane, yield to bicycles". This lets cars know that bikes are doing the right thing. Then you just need bicycle driver education (I like "Effective Cycling") so that the cyclists stay safe and don't impede the flow of traffic. Unfortunately, I've found that getting on a bicycle seems to mean turning off your brain and doing whatever feels right, which is often wrong.

(And that's why I don't like bike lanes, because they make doing the wrong thing feel like "the law". "There's that stripe, so I must make my left turn from the curb, that line on the road says so." Then they die and everyone whines about how dangerous cycling is.)

... or they don't turn from the curb, cut over to the left lane and drivers get pissed because "my tax dollars paid for that bike lane and you'rs still blocking me" I agree, there's really no way to win.

Have you checked out the new cycle lanes on Kinzie/Jackson yet? What are your thoughts? I haven't been able to get down there yet (I'm in MKE and life keeps getting in the way) but I feel like I myself would hate riding in them. Of course the advantage is that these new bike lanes (protected and otherwise) might draw out far more riders than we see currently. It's a hard dilemma for me because I want to see more people biking and accepting bikes on the road, but I still want to be able to go my own speed and safely mingle with traffic to get where I'm going.

I have ridden the Kinzie one in both directions. I usually need to turn left at Clinton or Des Plaines, and this is now very difficult, as it's tough to move from the poled-in area to the real traffic lane at speed. To turn at Clinton, I have to cut over traffic right after the bridge. To turn at Des Plaines, the lane change is simpler because the poles are gone, but that giant hill makes turning left there very difficult. I like to get over to the left well before the intersection so that I don't miss the turn due to too much traffic, but the poles force me to stay in the bike lane longer than I might want to during heavy traffic. (OK, there is never any traffic on Kinzie, so this is not a real problem.)

The stop signs along the route are very difficult for everyone, because nobody knows how to react to this weird lane thing that exists nowhere else on earth. Should cars yield to bikes? Should bikes yield to cars? There are some signs put up that try to tell you what to do, but I've read them a million times and can't remember what they say.

Kinzie is such a lightly-used street that I don't understand how these dividers help make the road safer. That big hill at the 5-way intersection is the only thing non-ideal about Kinzie, and of course that's never going to be fixed. Some reflective poles in the middle of the road don't do it for me.

While this doesn't excite me, there are changes that would. Parked cars could be removed from the side of the road, leaving enough room for cyclists and cars to truly share the right lane. (No need for bike lane markings; the extra room is just as good and much cheaper to create.) Speed limits could be lowered from 30 to 25, so that, with training, bikes and cars could actually be going to same speed. This means that traffic light timings would be just as good for bikes as for cars, meaning that there would be no travel time advantage for cars.

I doubt this will happen, so as a substitute, how about giving people speeding tickets in Chicago? I've never seen anyone get one, and I've seen people getting off the freeway and continuing to drive 75 on the surface streets. 75 on a city street? Come on.

Milwaukee is pretty bike-friendly in general though. Well sort of, the people typically will respect you on the road but don't ask them to spend a dime on bike lanes, trails, or anything else not related to driving a car as fast as possible. My ride to work (8 mi. now) is primarily on an off mile street so traffic is light and I have almost no problems with cars.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard

[2] http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/124686578.html

Kinzie Bike Lane:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/bike...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64168757@N02/sets/7215762730854...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64168757@N02/5987403529/in/set-...

"<picture of bicycle> stop for peds". Isn't that what the stop sign means?

And here's the other one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chicagobikes/5828955426/in/set-...

Also, getting hit by a car at 15mph is quite survivable.

(I looked this up in the Illinois driver manual, and it gets a size-negative-a-million one-bullet-point mention. No wonder nobody can use stop signs.)

A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death situation as just falling onto the road puts them at extremely high risk for injury. The cost of errors made by car drivers has a huge impact on the morbidity of cyclists, while the opposite doesn't hold true. Even if cyclists were an order of magnitude more dangerous than car drivers, their poor decisions would have negligible impact on car drivers.

We don't allow people to risk their own lives. We force people by law to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts (ignoring a very few number of states). That doesn't at all improve the chances for other people to survive. You aren't considering the fact that a bicyclist causes injuries to people who aren't them. There are plenty of scenarios for this, cars swerving into incoming traffic, into a utility pole into pedestrians to avoid a cyclist. Way more people die from swerving to avoid animals than from hitting animals; even hitting a deer isn't likely to kill you in a modern automobile, but swerving into a tree to avoid one will.

Except when they don't, due to mobility problems or having pets with them or other reasons. Expecting anyone to jump out of your way when you come barreling down the sidewalk is going to hurt someone.

This is what annoys me most about drivers of cars: they are quick to criticize cyclists, but are very slow to criticize their own actions.

Also I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but I commute 95% by bike, over 4000 miles a year.

By the same token, quite often there is not physical possibility of legal cycling OR driving. Courtesy is the solution indeed, yet the rhetoric on the issue seems to point the finger at cyclist more than other parties involved.

The problem with the delivery truck/bus blocking the lane is that its easy and much more safe for a car to take half of the extra lane without obstructing the flow. This is a much more challenging a maneuver on a bike. Finally, these vehicles block the bike lane and then half of the right lane. Imagine if a truck was wide enough to block the entire two-lane roadway and force motor vehicle traffic to precariously dodge traffic going in the opposite direction. Not a bulletproof analogy, but worth considering...

Streets with bike lanes are way faster in my experience. But I'm also used to dedicated bike lanes.

Of course, separate is better. Just not mandatory.

And yes, I have cycled in Copenhagen for years and not at all innocent in this matter.

Like e.g. policy checking for cars speeding too much, police should also check the behaviour of cyclists. E.g. working lights when it is dark, running red lights, etc.

Though instead of checking for red lights, make sure the traffic signal changes quickly for cyclists. That's more effective.

And if you cannot speak up, then why complain about it? Think society only works if there is some level of checks in place if you're behaving nicely. And that should be done by people, not police.

Yes. Bikers have this in common with the drivers of trucks, buses, cars, SUVs, joggers, pedestrians, etc. They all break any rules that make their lives harder if they believe they're likely to get away with said breaking. All of them, all the time.

They're all just people, and they're all really the same.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner was invented in CA. In L.A. your car is your second home and this is true in most of CA, imo.

That said, I prefer a dense city because I am not a car person. I grew up in southern CA and you were, literally, a loser if you didn't have a car. In high school, that was me - no car, just a 10 speed. I consider living in dense cities in the U.S. (did live in NYC for a few years) because I prefer the benefits of non-car transportation.

Back in SF there is the local bike coalition that is lobbying city to build more bike lanes and that imo is really good. I've been riding in this city for a long time and the new bike lanes popping up all over are definitely nice. I see guys in suits and girls in dresses riding in to work all the time; it can be done!

But SF is also compact and hilly. We cyclists compete with cars all the time for space. I am not much of a red light or stop sign runner, but the thing people in cars don't quite grep is that momentum requires energy (or gravity). In a car, it's a tiny fraction of what it is on a bike. So, if no one is around (you can approach an intersection slowed down) you can cruise through with a 99% chance that you will be ok. Lots of people do this all the time.

However, there are plenty that disregard this (people that even blow past me when I'm stopped at an intersection). But, these are people of a similar mindset (I think) of those that speed up to go around me on a small street when I legally have to right to ride where I am and at the speed I do. I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off or 'wronged' by drivers. Far more times than I have gone through a stop sign.

The other thing drivers don't understand is sense of space. They are in a protected steel cage and are 'controlling' thousands of pounds of weight at high speeds. Me, 200 lbs of flesh, rubber, and steel tubes. There are some drivers that I feel are fine and nice people - they let you go first, they smile, they don't race around you just so they can make it to that stop sign a few seconds earlier. But more than not, people in cars - from my experience - just don't give a shit. You're in they're way, wtf, I don't have to deal with this, fuck off - you're not a valuable being.

Same thing goes as a pedestrian, which is my second mode of transportation. I love to walk. When I lived in NYC, I walked that city all the time. I will always walk. And in NYC, the cars are aggressive there, but there are also so many people that there's a different feel to the whole 'critical mass' of peds at a red light with cars coming. Anyone who's lived there knows what I'm talking about.

In SF, it's a different story. We have not yet reached that tipping point in terms of pedestrian density. So when you walk across a cross walk, with the right of way, it's not uncommon to have a car zoom by you before you get out of the middle of the street. Which in my mind, is total bullshit.

Ultimately, I don't feel bad for the cars at all nor do I share their plight. My gf drives a short distance to work (she's pregnant) and when I have to use her car to drop or pick her up, I know what it's like to be on the other side and I make sure I always yield to bikes and peds. I think I'm in a small minority.

Running reds and stop signs by bikes is not the smartest thing to do. But I don't think I'll ever side with car culture here in the U.S. There are just way too many negatives from it now and most people just don't care about you. One thing I'm absolutely waiting for is cars that navigate themselves. When they arrive, then I think I'll support cars again. Until then, I'm 100% on the side of bikes and peds.

There are motorists who act completely inappropriately towards bikers, and there are bikers who act in a manner that is equally unbefitting. Both are a big problem, and the one doesn't justify the other.

Personally, as a non-car-owning biker, it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists acting like dicks. It makes it that much harder for us to be taken seriously.

  > it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists
  > acting like dicks

In general, I find it really odd that people in cars think that cyclists need to watch out for cars and not the other way around. The person driving the car is the one holding the deadlier weapon, why are they not held to a higher sense of responsibility?

As an anecdote, one of my friends was hit by a car, and ended up in the hospital. She had the right of way, but that didn't stop the lady that was driving the car from calling her up to complain about the fact that her insurance was going to be more expensive after the accident.

Let that sink in. Someone driving a car, disobeyed the law, and put someone in the hospital, then called up that person to complain about their insurance increasing. I'll bet you that the driver wouldn't have called up to complain if the person she hit had been in a car rather than on a bicycle.

But isn't it even odder that cyclists think the same thing about pedestrians? My encounters with the "dick cyclist" has always been when I was walking. Isn't this similar to what cyclists think about the "dick driver"?

It seems whenever people are in a position of "power" they become pushy, impatient, and careless towards people in a "lesser" position, e.g. drivers towards bikers and bikers towards pedestrians.

The problem between car drivers and bike riders, is that there are a lot of drivers that view the position of the person in the car as the 'normal' position, and the position of the cyclist as the 'abnormal' position.

Take the article that the OP is in response to. It is written along the lines of:

  I drive a car, and do not drive bicycle. I therefore
  have little vested interest in infrastructure relating
  to bicycles and a strong vested interest in infrastructure
  related to cars. Therefore I see infrastructure related
  to bicycles as 'stealing' time/space/resources away
  from the infrastructure related to cars.

A driver who hits a cyclist or pedestrian risks a dent in the hood at the worst. So while the "dick cyclist" is annoying, the position of power isn't comparable.

They are. There are insurance requirements for driving, licensing, etc. I'm unaware of any legal restrictions on bicyling on public roads (apart from staying off certain restricted access roads, typically interstates).

We can argue about whether these requirements are adequate, but it's absurd to suggest that they don't exist.

> I'll bet you that the driver wouldn't have called up to complain if the person she hit had been in a car rather than on a bicycle.

I'll bet you that they would have, because I've seen it happen.

Why are you so certain that it wouldn't have happened?

  > We can argue about whether these requirements are
  > adequate, but it's absurd to suggest that they don't
  > exist.

A reasonable analogy would be hunters and guns. Hunters are required to get both a hunting license and a gun license (barring bow hunters, etc). If someone is wandering around in the forest during hunting season, who is the person that should be more aware of their surroundings. We can argue that both people should be, but the hunter is the person with the deadly weapon.

I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and build safer roads for bicyclists.

There are big debates about whether bicycle (rider?) licensing would be effective, but my two concerns are:

1) Added cost gives no incentive to car drivers to start commuting by bike, which would have at least some effect on congestion, pollution and health.

2) How do you enforce it?

There needs to be a big improvement in driver education, and responsible cycling needs to be promoted from a young age. Cutting reds and not signalling is behavioural issue that won't be magically fixed by registration/licensing.

Maybe not directly, but the funds generated from licensing and penalties could go towards education programs, tax rebates for those who start commuting by bike, improving safety for cyclists, etc. My guess is that there's a network effect to be had. Once you hit a certain density or,(ugh) critical mass of cyclists on the road you get a point where it is safe and socially-accepted enough that it will become commonplace, and everybody wins.

2) How do you enforce it?

I don't know, I have no experience in the machinations of government. However, I'm confident that if you tell state and municipal governments that they could generate revenue off of it, they will find a way.

Bikes are a problem? Right. Cars kill over 1.4 million people a year, and injure over 50 million people. Anybody arguing about problem cyclists really need a reality check.

I don't care anywhere near as much about dick cyclists who may get themselves killed, compared to problem car drivers who will get me killed.

When I'm driving, I hate cyclists, and when I'm cycling I hate drivers. Both groups are filled with complete freaking idiots who shouldn't be allowed onto the roads under any circumstances.

I've been hit by cyclists more than once. (And OK, I hit a pedestrian when I was riding a bike back when I was a teenager too.)

Walking in L.A. I experience near-misses with cyclists riding illegally on the sidewalk about as often as I experience near-misses from people running red lights when I'm in a car.

I also think its not unusual for people in this thread to be able to drive, and thus the need to portray how bikers are seen largely unnecessary (in my view). Drivers are the majority, and even keen cyclists will probably be drivers too.

As an occasional cyclist, I get particularly annoyed with bad cyclists when I'm driving, as I feel they bring me down with them by association.

You both make some valid points; I don't use 'bias' to imply you are wrong. Rather, bias affects the process by which you examine and evaluate your points.

  > Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety
  > rules, others would have less regard for your safety.

No to the extreme exaggeration 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over.' It's more like 'if you run a red light or stop sign, I might accidentally run you over.'

Do you have an example of "someone using <vehicle> did <unsafe thing>" where it wouldn't be considered way more egregious if someone did it in a car than a bike?

I think it's possible you have a flawed perception because everyone accepts that it's absolutely not ok with cars, while tons of people argue that the same things are ok for bikes, then there is significantly more people complaining about bikes because most people that run red lights don't go around talking about how they know better than the law.

Speeding, for one.

Talking on the phone or texting while driving, for another.

These things are responsible for countless preventable deaths on the roadways, and yet they're completely tolerated by most drivers.

Except text messaging, perhaps. In that case, it's always the asshole on their cell phone in the _other_ car doing something stupid. Of course, you never notice the dozens of times that _you're_ the asshole, because you're trying to fire off that quick text.

  > most people that run red lights don't go around
  > talking about how they know better than the law.

There is large area between running a red light at 90mph without even batting an eye, and coming to an almost (but technically not complete) stop before continuing through an intersection with a stop sign.

Read ww520 comment, he mentions drivers taking cyclists seriously. This is a typical bias, and the implication is clear. He is a driver, he already takes drivers seriously, because he is one.

Whatever it means to 'take someone seriously', I am hoping he does not mean avoid running of the road.

I take all participants on the road seriously, drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. I pay special attention to bikers to slow down, to get around them, or to yield to them when making turn since they are in a slower vehicle. I myself bike from time to time.

What I don't agree is the prevalent bikers mentality of ok'ing blowing redlight and stop sign, and the hypocrisy coming from the bikers to justify doing it.

Traffic laws are there so that participants of the road can share it SAFELY.

Simply by choosing to ride a bike, a cyclist makes the roads so much safer (comparatively) for everyone else, they could cycle backwards through the streets while blindfolded and it would _still_ likely be a net benefit to the safety of others on the road (nothing claimed about the cyclist him- or her-self).

And this is before you consider the notion that the vast majority of drivers speed (speed limits are seen as the _lower_ limit by many), and many tailgate, roll through stoplights, turn and change lanes without signaling, and send text messages while doing all of the above.

The safety numbers are so overwhelmingly in favor of cycling, talking about the "endangerment of others" in this context is, quite frankly, laughable.

Let's take New York, since it wasn't too hard to find relevant data. Data can be found at:

  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010NYSAccSummary.pdf
  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010BicycleAccSummary.pdf
  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010PedestrianAccSummary.pdf
  http://gruskinfoundation.org/pdfs/Pedestrian-Cyclist-Accidents_3-1.pdf

On the flip side, we have the comprehensive statistics on pedestrian/cyclist injuries compiled at Hunter University. In 2010, 927 pedestrians were treated for injuries involving cyclists. Of those, 84 received inpatient treatment, indicating a moderate or severe injury. Note that they count zero deaths.

Let's compile what we've got:

  Cars : 347 deaths, 4898 moderate or severe injuries, 17,250 minor injuries
  Bikes:   0 deaths,   84 moderate or severe injuries,    843 minor injuries

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/369169.stm

  Cars : 1,041 deaths, 4898 moderate or severe injuries, 17,250 minor injuries
  Bikes:     0 deaths,   84 moderate or severe injuries,    843 minor injuries

At that rate of comparison, cyclists would be expected to have caused 20.8 deaths, 97 moderate or severe injuries, and 345 minor injuries. If it were up to me, I'd opt for the higher number of minor injuries and greatly reduced number of deaths any day.

Please also take note that in this comparison, I was very generous to cars. We didn't add data on injuries and fatalities caused by car-on-car crashes versus bicycle-on-bicycle crashes, which I'm sure we can both agree would have come out far in favor of the cyclists. We also didn't consider non-fatal health effects of car emissions, and we rounded down fatal health effects. We also haven't even begun to talk about the year-over-year decrease in cyclist-related pedestrian fatalities in New York even though cycling participation has been increasing by double digits (as high as 26%) yearly.

And the cars _still_ came out looking bad.

On the flip side, these causalities reinforce the requirement of ALL road participants to follow the traffic laws. If the bikers stop at red and stop sign, don't you think the biker injures would go down?

  http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46427-women-cyclists-more-at-risk-of-death

Daily, we put up with drivers who speed, talk on their cell phones, drive while drunk, tailgate, dart between lanes without signaling, roll through stop signs, pollute the air we breathe, burn through our limited reserves of fossil fuels, injure forty million people per year, and kill one and a half million people per year, and you're hung up on the, what, _tens_ of deaths caused by cyclists per year due to running red lights? If that?

While you're at it, why not join the crusade against the grave threat we face from children running with scissors?

Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

> Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

Nice way to live up to the angry biker image. Calm down.

  > Nice way to live up to the angry biker image. Calm down.

As a cyclist who doesn't run red lights and stop signs, I haven't noticed any improvement in people's attitudes toward me when I tell them I'm a commuter cyclist. And why should I? I do it to get from A-to-B safely. I'm not some sort of cycling ambassador.

When a car behaves dangerously, that guy is an asshole. When a biker behaves dangerously, bikers are assholes. Let's hold everyone to the same standard, shall we? (relevant xkcd: https://www.xkcd.com/385/)

Sometimes this is true, but often it's not. Often, the person in the car is just jealous and angry that the cyclist breaking rules and getting away with it.

I ran a red light a few months ago, and as I did I heard a guy in a truck yelling angrily "Red light! Red light! Red light!" I ignored him because I've been through this intersection hundreds of times and it's infinitely safer for me to cautiously ride through the light and ride the next 50-100 yards on a clear road than it is to wait for the light and try to stay with the flow of traffic, which faces a simultaneous sharp curve and lane merge. These conditions are ripe for road rage, which can be fatal to cyclists.

If I ever get ticketed there for doing that, I will pay the fine and keep doing it. I don't think that will happen, though, since any time an officer is there I just give him a quick glance and he waves me through.

I do get irritated at cyclists who ride too fast on the sidewalk, though, and blow by pedestrians ringing their bells and such.

Also, cyclists could definitely apply some patience and courtesy (eg don't ride all the way to the front of a line of cars stopped at a stoplight and then take the lane as soon as the light turns green, forcing them all to wait for you.) It's not technically illegal and there aren't really any safety concerns, it's just a dick move. Have a some pity for the motorists. They are trapped in huge boxes of steel and forced to communicate with monotone honks and crude signals.

That of course is not what the law says, and many people (especially drivers and people who don't like bicycles) will disagree. However, it's a cultural norm which, when ignored, leads to far more frustrating four-way encounters. e.g. "law-abiding" cyclist approaches stop sign at the same time a car on the right has already arrived. Car, expecting cyclist to enter intersection (because that's what every other cyclist does) waits. Other cars approach intersection. Cyclist, wanting to abide by the law, slows so that first car can proceed through the intersection. Car waits, expecting cyclist to go through. Other cars wait. Law-abiding cyclist comes to complete stop. Well-meaning (but wrong) car motions cyclist to proceed, ceding right of way. Other cars seethe. Precious seconds wasted.

Sometimes as a cyclist it's better to just run that stop sign and save everybody the hassle. As a cyclist in SF, that's what I do, if there isn't already a car stopped at the intersection and/or very clearly arriving there before me. If there's a car starting to cross in front of me, I go behind it. If I'm coming up behind a car who has the right away as they proceed into the intersection, I'm going to piggyback through the intersection with them rather than stopping myself. I feel I'm abiding the spirit of right-of-way if not the letter of the traffic laws.

Also I notice that most drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians don't understand right of way to begin with, to the point of making weird and dangerous decisions: drivers stopping midway through an intersection trying to be "nice" to some pedestrian or cyclist whose turn it might not be. Dont do it! Take right of way when you have it. Pedestrians doing the same to motion cars through intersections even as they are in the middle of a crosswalk. Ack!

And no the conserving momentum thing is not BS. It's inherent to that mode of transportation. Watch how cyclists navigate stop signs some time. Even when they're more or less obeying the law, very few are coming to a complete stop. Starting and stopping a bike takes much more physical effort than it does a car. Combine that with the vast differences in kinetic energy between them, and I am so much more sympathetic to the cyclist cruising through the stop sign than the car who does the same (and again, actually take note sometime -- cars are as bad about not stopping at stop signs as bikes are).

Finally, as a car owner and driver, to other drivers: get over yourselves! You don't need to be in such a hurry. So what if a pedestrian crosses your path or a bike cruises through a stop sign? You have thousands of pounds of heavy machinery at your command. Be happy about that, pat yourself on the back,etc. You've already got a lot to be pleased with. If you need to stop more quickly than you would have liked, all you have to do is press down on that lever on the floor and you're back up to speed. Life is too short to get your blood pressure up about this sort of stuff. And if it does really get to you, maybe you should gasp park it and go for a walk.

Likewise next time you see a car cut in front of your bike, just let it roll and don't let the rage get to you.

Drivers, on the whole, behave pretty badly too. As a driver, biker, and pedestrian in the Boston area I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others.

Would love separated bike lanes. Biking in the city is very satisfying, but also nerve racking for me.

  I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others.

That and make all London taxi drivers cycle everywhere for a month to see how they like it ;-)

The trouble is that I'm currently in America, where traffic planners have apparently decided that every goddamn intersection should have a four-way stop sign. This, to me, makes no sense -- put in roundabouts, or a Give Way sign going two out of four ways, to make traffic flow efficient. But anyway, it makes cycling anywhere a huge pain.

Agreed about the lack of yield signs in North America though. Problematically, it normalizes rolling stops, making it harder to distinguish intersections where a stop is actually necessary.

I ride in Philadelphia and I try to be somewhat considerate to drivers. I slow down for every stoplight and stop sign, but if nobody's coming, I'm going to go through it, because I'm not going to get in trouble.

They are even rarer as a cyclist (takes me longer to clear the intersection).

The number of times that I have seen cyclists run red light safely (both for themselves and others in that intersection at the time) is precisely zero.

I've seen several hundred instances of cyclists running through intersections at this point.

The only good thing here from my point of view is that once I got out of big cities both cars and cyclists got a heck of a lot more courteous and law-abiding, so the number of people I have to deal with who're just completely ignoring the rules of the road, blocking intersections, etc is much lower. Good incentive to not live in a city again...

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/10/lamentation-bicycles-vs-...

Arguments don't differ very much from what follows your comment...

This sums up my own experience with cyclists. I've decided that they just don't belong on the roads. It's worse for everyone involved.

I have no problems with cyclists getting their own bike lanes, but until they do, I just wish they would stay off the roads entirely. I hate dealing with them both as a driver and a pedestrian.

but the ones that really get me are people in dark clothing after dark with no lights or helmet pedaling up the sidewalk on the left side of the street behind a row of parked cars and out across an intersection at 15mph... who, when faced with a near-accident, rant about how they had the "right of way".

Even if you're right, the right of way doesn't matter when you're dead, buddy.

There is probably more benefit in having less cars and more cycles than the converse.

Personally I think he was using hyperbole; countering the suggestion that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road and questioning the assumption that the solution to cycle-auto conflict had to fall in favour of the car.

Conjecture? Indeed.

Living in the Netherlands, the benefits of separate bike lanes (to point of a separate transit system) are so incredibly obvious. It's not some cultural particularity, it's because cycling has been made easy, nice (most of the time) and safe here. (see http://hembrow.blogspot.com/)

People who don't accept the rationality of the whole thing, probably have difficulty imagining a city with a cycling network. And when you show them the Dutch system, they have problems imagining the change it requires to get there. That is why Copenhaganize is a good campaign, because it shows the change is possible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM

Also, besides infrastructure, making a city of country bike-friendly also requires changes in legislation. E.g. in The Netherlands a lot legislation has been introduced in the past to protect cyclists, making drivers of motorized vehicles more cautious.

The effect on society is profound. Most of my colleagues go to work by bike, public transit, or both. A bike is often many times more economic than a car, reduces oil-dependence, and wide use results in cleaner air.

I tried discussing the benefits of cycling with a friend. "Bikes actually use as much energy to produce as cars, since they're made of high-tech materials which use a lot of energy in manufacture."

"Whenever I'm stuck in traffic, it's usually down to a cyclist somewhere."

"Having several cars is very environmentally friendly, since you can select the one most suited to your requirements at the time."

And he gets very pissy if I mention I've just completed a 20 mile ride or whatever, seems to think I'm bragging (which I am, sometimes ;) and it makes him a bit insecure. So yes, emotion trumps reason for some people.

A good conversational tactic for that kind of situation is to try to get him to agree in advance to what evidence would sway him. If you prove to him that cars are less energy-intensive to produce than cars, or that having several cars is less environmentally friendly than having one decent all-purpose car, will he agree to accept that, and actually change his mind? The purpose of getting pre-commitment here is to avoid the inevitable back-pedaling (no pun intended) and shifting of the goal-posts that would otherwise happen once you rebut his claims.

Incidentally, he's not a complete idiot and I've known him for a long time; we've been friends since school. But he does have a massive blind-spot about this kind of thing because, basically, he's in love with his car.

Optimizing for less time spent in transportation is nice, but there's a balance - both for yourself and society. A bunch of gas-guzzling one-ton hunks of steel squeezing their way down a packed freeway, with only a single passenger inside each... hardly seems beneficial to the economy, society, or the environment.

I'm not advocating for the status quo of one giant inefficient beast of steel per person, just explaining why some drivers get upset about small delays. It is my opinion that any transportation system that completely replaces the current road system will need to allow for the type of minimal-latency point-to-point mobility we now enjoy with cars (during off-peak hours, at least). The reason I believe this is that people are easy to move, but businesses, houses, and other resources are not. Extra mobility allows us to match the right people with the right resources in less time.

I used to live in NYC, and taking the subway, walking or biking was far more time efficient than taking a cab, much less driving your own car. LA wasn't really any better for driving, but the distances were usually to far for bikes, and mass transit was miserable.

The streets of Manhattan are a dangerous jungle for bikers. Cabs hit and run on a daily basis. Some of the bike lanes are in between parked cars and the car lanes making the risk even higher. Car doors, pedestrians running out, cars hugging the edge to make a turn, cars double parked. It's a far cry from a dedicated lane.

Personal experience time: When I first started riding in NYC it was a cautious, rule following experience. Then after a while you see how little respect you get and how much you genuinely have to look out for you're own life and you stop caring. You perceive every passing car as a potential death/bodily injury threat and pave your own way.

The article here is refuting a heavily biased New Yorker piece article by specifically refuting assertions based on fallacious assumptions.

We are where we are - everyone is behaving badly, and all sides are so deeply entrenched in their beliefs the arguments just cause people to dig in further and the ad homs and strawmen appear. HN is better than this.

The situation obviously can't continue, but it's time for a rational discussion of what's most effective, in terms of cost, and transportation efficiency, and safety for the largest number of people.

I'm prepared to have this discussion, and while I'll admit bias in a certain direction on this issue I'm open-minded enough to hear all sides. I'd like others to do the same, and we can all get onto having a fruitful and interesting discussion around solutions.

Some suggestions for potential discussion topics:

- Education/awareness

- Infrastructure costs and benefits (street parking, bike lanes, bus lanes, raised crosswalks, etc)

- Discussion of network effects

- Legislation to punish offenders (relative to cost/potential danger of the offense?)

- Maximum efficiency of moving the largest number of people (measure in average trip time)

- Externalities (pollution, business impact, etc)

- Psychology + behavior understanding and modification

There are quite a lot of externalities in the quality of living. Compare living in the bike-friendly Netherlands to car-friendly US cities. I know where I'd rather hang out.

Yes, switching over to bicycle transportation is an outstanding idea. However, the change has to be, in a manner of speaking, bootstrapped. There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues.

The question then becomes whether or not under-utilization is caused by lack of cycle route coverage. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that many people used to car transport think cycling through the traffic to be dangerous, and would look more favourably on it if there were separated dedicated lanes.

(If parking is available for 30 USD, then it appears that parking is not actually difficult in NYC. It is expensive, not difficult.)

That's the key takeaway. When property is at a premium, parking is also at a premium, by necessity. As someone who lives in a city, I like cheap parking as much as anybody else. But cheap parking is just city-subsidized parking.

And let's not forget that bike lanes are a public good, while parking spaces can be (and are) provided by private businesses. For that matter, the city could provide public lots or garages that are off the road. Parking does not need to be curbside.

Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused".

>There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues

This is incorrect. Aside from the network effect, the (under)utilization of an existing bike lane is not necessarily indicative of the expected usage pattern of a new bike lane. Imagine applying this argument to bus routes. Just because the 32 from Manhattan to the Bronx is underutilized, does that mean that a new route 44 from Manhattan to Long Island would also be underutilized? (Obviously my examples here are made up.)

As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

Did you mean "gratis"?

> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.

That's not just weak. There is no right or freedom that entitles one to public parking. There's nothing "libre" about public parking.

> As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

It most certainly is the government's job to encourage change. The role of the government is not simply to be the enforcer for the masses. A large part of the government's job is to maintain a prosperous nation. Sometimes that requires change that the majority doesn't necessarily support. There are probably relatively few meaningful things that the government does with the support of >50% of the population. Rather, there are a lot of things that please some significant minority of the population. e.g. Bob gets a new connection between two major roads, Joe gets a new bike lane, Sue gets lower taxes on groceries, and Mallory gets a Hybrid car subsidy.

> Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

Public land use is an exercise in resource allocation. The idea that parking should take priority over bike lanes is an opinion. It comes down to estimating what will be best for the city, both short and long-term.

A viable argument could be made that governments which don't provide free helicopter rides infringe on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private helicopter services.

And I defy anyone to spend time on a major non-recreational cycling route (Sands Street, 8th Avenue, the Williamsburg Bridge, Prospect Park West) when the weather is pleasant and state that the infrastructure is underutilized. Were it the ghost town that Cassidy and Weinshall claim, the DOT would not be putting in pedestrian safeguards (bollards, the wall at the bottom of the Williamsburg Bridge).

This debate has raged for the better part of this year, and the notion of Prospect Park West residents sitting with golf clickers counting cyclists in the dead of winter and claiming the paths are underutilized is ridiculous.

Secondly, as far as increasing while they're currently under-utilized, I'd say that there's an argument for increasing to the point where there's a solid network over most of the city (which we're about at now). It's hard to say oh we don't need a bike lane on the UES because the west side lane isn't always full of bikers. Additionally, during rush hour those lanes certainly are utilized, I'm never the only one on a bike on a given block's length of bikelane during rush hour.

However, there's a massive distinction that we have to realize: garages are privately-owned, whereas parking is municipally-regulated. The city is switching out public parking for public bicycle paths, and I don't necessarily know if this a net positive economically.

It's funny, neither article nor any comment mentions the subways in NYC, which are excellent. That would seem like the no-brainer choice for navigating Manhattan; it certainly is when I visit. That this guy must visit Manhattan locales by cars is... I dunno, perhaps being too picky? Anyways, if people want to keep doing it, parking will surely pop up at prices the market can bear.

Double digit returns on a relatively low-risk investment aren't exactly bad.

Not a strong argument against Cassidy's article, I admit (he's a journalist, his writing style needs to be engaging), but hilarious anyways.

Sure, that's because a bike doesn't promote emotional attachment, unlike a car. A cyclist enjoys biking, but he generally doesn't attribute that enjoyment to his bike -- he would just as happily swap for another, just as I'd throw out my old running shoes and buy a new pair.

Cars, however, promote more emotional bonding. I think because the car moves under its own power it feels more like it's alive. I press the accelerator, the car does what I tell it, and we form a bond just as a rider forms a bond with his horse. On a pushbike you're always keenly aware that it's you who is doing all the work, and the bike is just a tool.

My brother is a (very) avid cyclist - he even names all of his bikes. Hell, he builds them from scratch, hand-picking components, and is meticulous about keeping all of them in tip-top condition constantly.

I don't think one can claim he isn't "attached" to his bike - and I've met his cyclist friends who are similarly reverent about their vehicles of choice. Their attachment to their bikes is about equal to what I see from avid drivers and their meticulously maintained cars.

Likewise, I know many people who could care less what kind of car they drive so long as it is clean and runs well.

Some people care about what they use, some people don't.

Similarly, we need to educate drivers in treating cyclists respectfully. Don't tolerate running stop signs; that's illegal. But you must tolerate cyclists that are taking the entire right lane because they think they need it for their safety. Look behind you, change to the left lane, and overtake on the left. Don't be annoyed, because this is how roads work. There is going to be traffic and some of it is going to be slower than you. That's why there are multiple lanes. Relax, drive intelligently, and you won't even notice the cyclists because they won't seem any different from any other traffic.

I don't understand the "which" part. Wouldn't it be all bikes that are legal on the bike paths? That's how motorcycles work for roads.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3156628

Now, that doesn't mean I go out of my way to exude a staid nature on the bike; I'm generally riding as fast as I care to or want to -- but the thing about being on a bike is that speed is (generally) physically governed -- I cannot ride any faster than my body allows. And in most pedestrian settings (i.e. without the presence of significant downhill stretches) this will be between 15 and 30mph (Individual TTs in the TDF will maybe see an avg speed of 30-33mph -- wattage and speed way out of the reach for anyone but the strongest riders on the most advanced machines).

I bring this up to make a point, a dangerous cyclist (i.e. the dudes you see running lights and being jerks with disregard to everyone else) is dangerous but only marginally as compared to a dangerous driver. And this is of course due to the fact that cyclists are limited to pedestrian speeds (30mph going all) and constitute a small fraction of the mass of a car (200lbs:3000lbs+). But they are dangerous (especially to pedestrians -- one reason they should never be riding on sidewalks) nonetheless and I'd love for everyone to show a little more common courtesy.

More than that, however, I wish (more) drivers were aware of how threatening they are in their vehicles (sometimes weapons). Never am I more aware of how fragile the balance of life is as when I'm on my bike with an angry driver alongside me verbally berating me. And this is because riding the bike is not as easy as driving a car in the best of times (neither of which is especially difficult) -- but in the worst of times it's much harder. And your being alongside me with your window down is about as bad as they come. Not only do I have to continue navigating the road I now also have to consider you and your intentions. You might just be someone who wants to get something off their chest and be on the their way (still far better to do it when neither of us are moving). Or you might be one of the others who will only find solace once you've swerved at the me or run me off the road (yes, I have been maliciously run off the road; no, it's not so uncommon). So my senses flare and my defensive instincts kick in any time a car rolls up with something to say because the moment you do you change from being a driver of a car to a potentially dangerous and unpredictable stranger with a weapon. I doubt I'm far from the the only one to feel this way based on how inflammatory these situations routinely become. It doesn't help that the law will generally take the side of the driver or find themselves impuissant due to the fact that cars can and do flee the scene with none the wiser (ever try to get a license plate number down from a fleeing vehicle -- they don't need much distance on you to make it hopeless)

Now that being that, I understand how easy it is to lump individuals in as belonging to "that group". Despite the number of mean spirited drivers I've encountered, they stand out only because we tend to overlook all the others who are good spirited (and thus never give you cause to notice or appreciate them -- in fact i've only been caught off guard with a car rolling up with a pleasantry/compliment two times). I personally suspect that the malicious drivers themselves are repeat offenders and are responsible for the vast majority of encounters (i.e. if there are 10,000 drivers in an area, and 100 events occur it implies 1% of drivers were involved; what's more likely is that a repeat offending driver causes multiple events over a certain route or a time period which means only a fraction of 1% of the drivers are involved).

Which means I should respect you as long as you don't threaten me, and you should respect me provided the same. But let me tell you, it takes just about all my willpower to not rip your head off when you confront me in your car while I'm already giving it my best to be courteous and safe; I do give it my best, though.

Overall, most motorists I've encountered are happy to share the road, appreciate that I'm sticking to the rules and carry lights, etc, and there's no problem. While parts of the US are making immense progress with promoting cycling, it seems there are still places where there's a lot more to do. Still, whenever I do get any hassle from motorists, I just remind myself that fuel prices are rocketing and in a few years, they'll be cycling too.

I'm in SF and you actually see very striking changes in behavior and attitude by both cyclists and drivers depending on your route/location. In SF itself, I find drivers to be pretty considerate with most of the hazards caused by drivers who aren't paying attention. But 10 miles in either direction will get you out and away from the city and bring you to more remote locations (i.e. winding mountain roads, or coastal highways, etc). I encounter far more aggression as soon as there aren't other cars around -- perhaps they're smart enough to minimize the risk to themselves (little as it is) by ensuring there aren't other drivers around to witness it.

Glad to hear it's not like this everywhere, though. And I suspect things will continue to improve here.