kehoe@reed.UUCP (Dave Kehoe) (04/21/85)
On Tuesday, April 9th, I went to a public meeting con-
cerning the SE 26th street bicycle route, at Cleveland High
School. The meeting was moderated by Joe Walsh of the
Office of Transportation (City of Portland). He described
the existing bicycle route from the Hawthorne Street bridge
to Reed College (SE Clay to Ladd to 21st to Clinton to 26th
to Reed College), and explained that the bicycle route is
not safe on 26th between Clinton and Holgate because 6500
cars a day use the street and the average automobile's speed
there is 39mph (the speed limit is 30mph). Parked cars
force bicyclists into the driving lane, and it's not safe
for bicyclists to ride in such traffic. I know these facts
to be true, as I live across the street from the Clinton
Street Theater, and I ride my bicycle on SE 26th every day.
Mr.Walsh described four alternatives:
1) using 28th instead of 26th. This is unacceptable for
several reasons, including the lack of a crossing at Powell
and the dangerous traffic south of Steele;
2) using SE 21st, 22nd and Gladstone streets instead of
Clinton and SE 26th streets;
3) timed bicycle-only lanes on 26th -- i.e. no parking on
26th between 7 and 9am and 4 and 6pm. This is also unwork-
able, for numerous reasons;
4) restricting parking on 26th to one side of the street and
painting two four-foot wide bicycle-only lanes on the
street. Parking would not be adversely affected because
parking is currently light enough that all the cars could
easily park on one side of the street. The bicycle lanes
would keep bicycles and cars safely seperated.
Mr.Walsh explained that the funds to repaint the street
and/or to install signs would not come from local taxpayers,
but would come from the gasoline tax fund.
Well, the bicyclists at the meeting began to say that
both the second and fourth alternatives were good ideas, but
then several non-bicyclists began expressing their opinions.
One man said that a bicycle route would lower property
values. Another man expressed fear that a bicycle route
would cause thousands of bicyclists to come from all over
the country to ride on SE 26th. One woman said that she had
children and was against a bicycle route because it would
somehow (she didn't say how) endanger to her children.
Another woman complained about taxpayers' money being spent
on bicycle routes instead of the police. One man complained
about taxpayer's money being spent to limit his freedom.
Apparently he meant his freedom to drive and park on what-
ever part of the street he wanted. Another man kept insist-
ing that the City Council was going to use this as a pre-
cedent to widen 26th by taking eight feet out of his front
yard. Mr.Walsh assured him that there were no such plans,
but the man kept saying that he didn't trust Mr.Walsh.
Someone else said that a bicycle route would bring "tran-
sients, like Reed College students" into the neighborhood.
Now, I know how many bicycle haters there are out
there. I've been assaulted twice by motorists (most
recently last December, while I waited at the stop light on
SE 17th and Bybee, a man jumped out of his car and attacked
me with a big stick), and I've been run off the road more
times than I can remember (most recently on Monday, April
8th, on Ladd Circle, I came to a full stop at a stop sign,
and a motorist behind me had no intention of stopping. He
slammed on his brakes, honked his horn, and when I left the
stop sign he forced me into the curb). But until last night
I hadn't realized that any bicycle haters were capable of
getting out of their cars and walking to a public meeting.
One man expressed his opinion that "if bicyclists obeyed
traffic laws they'd be safe on the streets." Would bicy-
clists be safe when the _a_v_e_r_a_g_e motorist on SE 26th is driv-
ing 39mph in a 30mph zone? Should bicyclists obey traffic
laws when I get run off the road for stopping at a stop
sign? Who is he kidding?
I wish that I could sum up this essay with a positive
conclusion, but I can't. What is there but hatred and fear
on the streets out there? How can anyone change that? I
wish I knew.
Dave Kehoealbert@harvard.ARPA (David Albert) (04/22/85)
> Well, the bicyclists at the meeting began to say that > both the second and fourth alternatives were good ideas, but > then several non-bicyclists began expressing their opinions. ... > I wish that I could sum up this essay with a positive > conclusion, but I can't. What is there but hatred and fear > on the streets out there? How can anyone change that? I > wish I knew. > > Dave Kehoe About half of my drive to work each day is through Cambridge, MA, with a large cyclist population, and I pass about 15 bicyles every morning. With two exceptions, I have never had any cause to complain of their on-road conduct, and fortunately on the two occasions when a cyclist darted in front of me suddenly, I was able to stop safely. Unfortunately, however, even a very small number of such incidents can sour motorist-cyclist relationships. I am quite nervous each time I approach a bicycle on the road, and have a hard time passing them for fear that they will cause an accident -- for which I, as the motorist, would be held responsible. I realize that I am a somewhat timid driver, but I venture that other drivers react to similar feelings with the hostility you mentioned in your article. It is unfortunate that the actions of a few bikers should cause such widespread dislike. Is there a solution to this problem? How would bikers feel about a "biker's license" that would be required of all on-street bikers? Perhaps such a measure would serve to remind bikers that they are also required to obey the traffic laws. This is just a suggestion. Do similar feelings exist in other countries? Amsterdam: you should be in a good position to respond! -- David Albert ihnp4!seismo!harvard!albert (albert@harvard.ARPA)
roy@hpmtla.UUCP (roy) (04/22/85)
/***** hpmtla:net.bicycle / reed!kehoe / 5:04 pm Apr 20, 1985*/
On Tuesday, April 9th, I went to a public meeting con-
cerning the SE 26th street bicycle route, at Cleveland High
School. The meeting was moderated by Joe Walsh of the
Office of Transportation (City of Portland). He described
the existing bicycle route from the Hawthorne Street bridge
to Reed College (SE Clay to Ladd to 21st to Clinton to 26th
to Reed College), and explained that the bicycle route is
not safe on 26th between Clinton and Holgate because 6500
cars a day use the street and the average automobile's speed
there is 39mph (the speed limit is 30mph). Parked cars
force bicyclists into the driving lane, and it's not safe
for bicyclists to ride in such traffic. I know these facts
to be true, as I live across the street from the Clinton
Street Theater, and I ride my bicycle on SE 26th every day.
Mr.Walsh described four alternatives:
1) using 28th instead of 26th. This is unacceptable for
several reasons, including the lack of a crossing at Powell
and the dangerous traffic south of Steele;
2) using SE 21st, 22nd and Gladstone streets instead of
Clinton and SE 26th streets;
3) timed bicycle-only lanes on 26th -- i.e. no parking on
26th between 7 and 9am and 4 and 6pm. This is also unwork-
able, for numerous reasons;
4) restricting parking on 26th to one side of the street and
painting two four-foot wide bicycle-only lanes on the
street. Parking would not be adversely affected because
parking is currently light enough that all the cars could
easily park on one side of the street. The bicycle lanes
would keep bicycles and cars safely seperated.
Mr.Walsh explained that the funds to repaint the street
and/or to install signs would not come from local taxpayers,
but would come from the gasoline tax fund.
Well, the bicyclists at the meeting began to say that
both the second and fourth alternatives were good ideas, but
then several non-bicyclists began expressing their opinions.
One man said that a bicycle route would lower property
values. Another man expressed fear that a bicycle route
would cause thousands of bicyclists to come from all over
the country to ride on SE 26th. One woman said that she had
children and was against a bicycle route because it would
somehow (she didn't say how) endanger to her children.
Another woman complained about taxpayers' money being spent
on bicycle routes instead of the police. One man complained
about taxpayer's money being spent to limit his freedom.
Apparently he meant his freedom to drive and park on what-
ever part of the street he wanted. Another man kept insist-
ing that the City Council was going to use this as a pre-
cedent to widen 26th by taking eight feet out of his front
yard. Mr.Walsh assured him that there were no such plans,
but the man kept saying that he didn't trust Mr.Walsh.
Someone else said that a bicycle route would bring "tran-
sients, like Reed College students" into the neighborhood.
Now, I know how many bicycle haters there are out
there. I've been assaulted twice by motorists (most
recently last December, while I waited at the stop light on
SE 17th and Bybee, a man jumped out of his car and attacked
me with a big stick), and I've been run off the road more
times than I can remember (most recently on Monday, April
8th, on Ladd Circle, I came to a full stop at a stop sign,
and a motorist behind me had no intention of stopping. He
slammed on his brakes, honked his horn, and when I left the
stop sign he forced me into the curb). But until last night
I hadn't realized that any bicycle haters were capable of
getting out of their cars and walking to a public meeting.
One man expressed his opinion that "if bicyclists obeyed
traffic laws they'd be safe on the streets." Would bicy-
clists be safe when the _a_v_e_r_a_g_e motorist on SE 26th is driv-
ing 39mph in a 30mph zone? Should bicyclists obey traffic
laws when I get run off the road for stopping at a stop
sign? Who is he kidding?
I wish that I could sum up this essay with a positive
conclusion, but I can't. What is there but hatred and fear
on the streets out there? How can anyone change that? I
wish I knew.
Dave Kehoe
/* ---------- */roy@hpmtla.UUCP (roy) (04/22/85)
/***** hpmtla:net.bicycle / roy / 12:14 pm Apr 25, 1985*/
/***** hpmtla:net.bicycle / reed!kehoe / 5:04 pm Apr 20, 1985*/
On Tuesday, April 9th, I went to a public meeting con-
cerning the SE 26th street bicycle route, at Cleveland High
School. The meeting was moderated by Joe Walsh of the
Office of Transportation (City of Portland). He described
the existing bicycle route from the Hawthorne Street bridge
to Reed College (SE Clay to Ladd to 21st to Clinton to 26th
to Reed College), and explained that the bicycle route is
not safe on 26th between Clinton and Holgate because 6500
cars a day use the street and the average automobile's speed
there is 39mph (the speed limit is 30mph). Parked cars
force bicyclists into the driving lane, and it's not safe
for bicyclists to ride in such traffic. I know these facts
to be true, as I live across the street from the Clinton
Street Theater, and I ride my bicycle on SE 26th every day.
Mr.Walsh described four alternatives:
1) using 28th instead of 26th. This is unacceptable for
several reasons, including the lack of a crossing at Powell
and the dangerous traffic south of Steele;
2) using SE 21st, 22nd and Gladstone streets instead of
Clinton and SE 26th streets;
3) timed bicycle-only lanes on 26th -- i.e. no parking on
26th between 7 and 9am and 4 and 6pm. This is also unwork-
able, for numerous reasons;
4) restricting parking on 26th to one side of the street and
painting two four-foot wide bicycle-only lanes on the
street. Parking would not be adversely affected because
parking is currently light enough that all the cars could
easily park on one side of the street. The bicycle lanes
would keep bicycles and cars safely seperated.
Mr.Walsh explained that the funds to repaint the street
and/or to install signs would not come from local taxpayers,
but would come from the gasoline tax fund.
Well, the bicyclists at the meeting began to say that
both the second and fourth alternatives were good ideas, but
then several non-bicyclists began expressing their opinions.
One man said that a bicycle route would lower property
values. Another man expressed fear that a bicycle route
would cause thousands of bicyclists to come from all over
the country to ride on SE 26th. One woman said that she had
children and was against a bicycle route because it would
somehow (she didn't say how) endanger to her children.
Another woman complained about taxpayers' money being spent
on bicycle routes instead of the police. One man complained
about taxpayer's money being spent to limit his freedom.
Apparently he meant his freedom to drive and park on what-
ever part of the street he wanted. Another man kept insist-
ing that the City Council was going to use this as a pre-
cedent to widen 26th by taking eight feet out of his front
yard. Mr.Walsh assured him that there were no such plans,
but the man kept saying that he didn't trust Mr.Walsh.
Someone else said that a bicycle route would bring "tran-
sients, like Reed College students" into the neighborhood.
Now, I know how many bicycle haters there are out
there. I've been assaulted twice by motorists (most
recently last December, while I waited at the stop light on
SE 17th and Bybee, a man jumped out of his car and attacked
me with a big stick), and I've been run off the road more
times than I can remember (most recently on Monday, April
8th, on Ladd Circle, I came to a full stop at a stop sign,
and a motorist behind me had no intention of stopping. He
slammed on his brakes, honked his horn, and when I left the
stop sign he forced me into the curb). But until last night
I hadn't realized that any bicycle haters were capable of
getting out of their cars and walking to a public meeting.
One man expressed his opinion that "if bicyclists obeyed
traffic laws they'd be safe on the streets." Would bicy-
clists be safe when the _a_v_e_r_a_g_e motorist on SE 26th is driv-
ing 39mph in a 30mph zone? Should bicyclists obey traffic
laws when I get run off the road for stopping at a stop
sign? Who is he kidding?
I wish that I could sum up this essay with a positive
conclusion, but I can't. What is there but hatred and fear
on the streets out there? How can anyone change that? I
wish I knew.
Dave Kehoe
/* ---------- */
/* ---------- */tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (04/22/85)
In article <1370@reed.UUCP> kehoe@reed.UUCP (Dave Kehoe) writes: > >ing 39mph in a 30mph zone? Should bicyclists obey traffic >laws when I get run off the road for stopping at a stop >sign? Who is he kidding? > Two quick points, bicyclists should always obey traffic laws. What other people do should have no effect on how we deal with the law. Secondly, and I'm not accussing anyone of doing this, but I haven't had nearly the problem with motorists since I stopped passing them on the right. It seems motorists get annoyed when a bicyclist passes them on the right (while waiting for a stoplight for instance) after this motorist has just legally passed the bicycle. I personally don't blame the motorist. Along the same lines, I now use bike paths whenever possible even though they may be less convenient than the street. One route I frequently travel has a nearby bike path that I used to ignore, I noticed a lot of hostility from motorists along this particular stretch of road. One day I was driving down this street and was annoyed at how a bike was really slowing down traffic, my first thought was "Why doesn't he use the bike path just one block away? It was put there just to relieve this problem." It doesn't do any good to shout and scream "We the bicyclists have rights too!" What does work is to try and work out solutions - sometimes that means you will be doing all the work. There is no doubt that bicyclists are discriminated against and that is can be dangerous to ride in places where it shouldn't be. This is largely the fault of motorists. Unfortunately the motorists have the power now, I don't see the point of pounding my head against a brick wall. Peter B
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/23/85)
In article <983@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >Secondly, and I'm not accussing anyone of doing this, but I haven't >had nearly the problem with motorists since I stopped passing them on >the right. It seems motorists get annoyed when a bicyclist passes them >on the right (while waiting for a stoplight for instance) after this >motorist has just legally passed the bicycle. I personally don't blame >the motorist. I don't understand... what's *wrong* with rolling up to the stop light past the stopped cars? If the only problem is that some drivers resent my doing so, tough shits. I occasionally encounter drivers who are too close to the curb, so that there's no room for me to get past them while they're stopped. Before I decided that growing old was a worthwhile goal, I used to go around these guys *on* *the* *left*, and then when the light changed I'd get in front of them in the middle of the lane, and -g-o- -s-l-o-w- for about 10-15 seconds. Just enough to get even without (I hoped) getting the driver angry enough to deliberately run me over. -- David Canzi Man: An animal [whose]... chief occupation is the extermination of other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada. Ambrose Bierce
llfe@hound.UUCP (L.FENG) (04/23/85)
Reasons why you shouldn't pass cars on the right at a light: You are breaking traffic regulations You are unecessarily creating hostility towards other cyclists You give motorists an excuse to run you off the road You may get run over by someone turning right It is difficult to see you and an unexpected move therefore it is harder for the auto driver to avoid having an accident Reasons why you should pass cars on the right at a light: You get a kick out of making people angry You are trying to commit suicide Even if it wasn't your fault, if you hit and killed/maimed someone while driving a car, how would you feel, for the rest of your life?
ccrbrian@ucdavis.UUCP (Brian Reilly) (04/24/85)
> > > > Is there a solution to this problem? How would bikers feel about a > "biker's license" that would be required of all on-street bikers? > Perhaps such a measure would serve to remind bikers that they are > also required to obey the traffic laws. This is just a suggestion. > > Do similar feelings exist in other countries? Amsterdam: you should > be in a good position to respond! > -- > > David Albert Here in Davis, which likes others to refer to it as the 'bicycle capital of the U.S.', things are a little easier for people riding bicycles. Most of the major streets have bike paths and many of these are as wide as the car lanes. There are about 30 miles of paths I think, and Davis is a small town - maybe 5 or 6 miles wide. There are also bicycle police who give tickets for running stop signs, parking illegally, riding with no light and driving without a license. Tickets are fairly common. People are also occasionally arrested for drunk riding. Since there are more bicycles than people in Davis, most drivers are also cyclists, so they usually look out for the bikes. If people are educated to treat the person on the bike as someone sharing the road and not depriving them of their right to speed, perhaps some of the problems of uncaring drivers will go away. Last week I was riding on a back road with no bike lane and I knocked my pump off and into the path of a truck. I waited to watch the truck crush the pump, but the driver slowed down and stopped so I could retrieve it. Brian -- ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Brian Reilly U.C. Davis Computer Center Davis, CA 95616 ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb:ccrbrian "If I had something clever to say, it would go here." =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mike@asgb.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof) (04/25/85)
> I occasionally encounter drivers who are too close to the curb, so that > there's no room for me to get past them while they're stopped. Before ====== > I decided that growing old was a worthwhile goal, I used to go around ================================================ > these guys *on* *the* *left*, and then when the light changed I'd get > in front of them in the middle of the lane, and -g-o- -s-l-o-w- for > about 10-15 seconds. Just enough to get even without (I hoped) getting > the driver angry enough to deliberately run me over. I'm glad to see that underlined phrase, because this is exactly the type of thing that sensible bicyclists should NEVER do. Intentionally obstructing traffic is probably illegal, and does little except to promote more violence and hatred towards bicycles!!! You can't get even when they outweigh you 100:1. Mike Rosenlof ihnp4!sabre!\ hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!mike { ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/ Burroughs Advanced Systems Group Boulder, Colorado
marko@mako.UUCP (Mark O'Shea) (04/25/85)
In article <1290@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >In article <983@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >>Secondly, and I'm not accussing anyone of doing this, but I haven't >>had nearly the problem with motorists since I stopped passing them on >>the right. It seems motorists get annoyed when a bicyclist passes them >>on the right (while waiting for a stoplight for instance) after this >>motorist has just legally passed the bicycle. I personally don't blame >>the motorist. > >I don't understand... what's *wrong* with rolling up to the stop light >past the stopped cars? If the only problem is that some drivers resent >my doing so, tough shits. > >I occasionally encounter drivers who are too close to the curb, so that >there's no room for me to get past them while they're stopped. Before >I decided that growing old was a worthwhile goal, I used to go around >these guys *on* *the* *left*, and then when the light changed I'd get >in front of them in the middle of the lane, and -g-o- -s-l-o-w- for >about 10-15 seconds. Just enough to get even without (I hoped) getting >the driver angry enough to deliberately run me over. >-- > David Canzi > >Man: An animal [whose]... chief occupation is the extermination of >other animals and his own species, which, however, multiplies with such >insistent rapidity as to infest the whole habitable earth and Canada. > Ambrose Bierce Nice work. Now I know why I've had bottles thrown at me, been run off the road and even had one guy try to urinate on me from the back of a pickup. Because some childish jerk behaved the way you described it, many of us pay the bill. If we put ourselves in others shoes we might see it differently. Alas, never give a fool advice you'll have better luck spitting in the wind. Mark O'Shea
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/26/85)
> One woman said that she had > children and was against a bicycle route because it would > somehow (she didn't say how) endanger to her children. The woman isn't *completely* a bozo --- the bike path down Venice Beach here in California has had a stack of injuries and few fatalities involving overzealous bicyclists running into pedestrians. It *can* happen.
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/27/85)
In article <124@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> One woman said that she had >> children and was against a bicycle route because it would >> somehow (she didn't say how) endanger to her children. > >The woman isn't *completely* a bozo --- the bike path down Venice Beach >here in California has had a stack of injuries and few fatalities involving >overzealous bicyclists running into pedestrians. It *can* happen. I've ridden that bike path plenty of times and have almost run into people but sure wasn't MY fault. The path runs right through the middle of the beach and in the summer there are thousands of people (and probably more bozos :-)) wandering around. They pay no attention to where they are walking and will walk right into the path of a bicycle. What am I supposed to do, ride at 1 mph? Also, to show the stupidity of the beach goers, last summer I was almost decapitated when someone decided to roll up their kite string across the bike path - I saw it at the last second and slammed on the brakes. They didn't even apologize! -- Rick Gillespie rick@ucla-cs ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick "She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (04/27/85)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: | | > One woman said that she had | > children and was against a bicycle route because it would | > somehow (she didn't say how) endanger to her children. | | The woman isn't *completely* a bozo --- the bike path down Venice Beach | here in California has had a stack of injuries and few fatalities involving | overzealous bicyclists running into pedestrians. It *can* happen. With children though, it tends to be a matter of overzealous pedestrians running into bicyclists. A few kids at the local elementary school seem to see no problem with waiting until the last possible moment to dash out in front of hapless bicyclists. I've had this happen to me three times in the space of two years, and I have avoided more incidents by not using that route very frequently. Dave Long -- gnoL evaD Beware of {msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios, Black ICE nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/28/85)
> /***** hpmtla:net.bicycle / roy / 12:14 pm Apr 25, 1985*/ > /***** hpmtla:net.bicycle / reed!kehoe / 5:04 pm Apr 20, 1985*/ > > On Tuesday, April 9th, I went to a public meeting con- > cerning the SE 26th street bicycle route, at Cleveland High > School. The meeting was moderated by Joe Walsh of the > Office of Transportation (City of Portland). He described Why is this appearing on a news network with worldwide distribution? I dont have the slightest idea of were SE 26th streen in Portland in who knows what state or country is. What gives?
awinterb@udenva.UUCP (Art Winterbauer) (04/28/85)
Every time I become annoyed by a bicyclist blocking or slowing traffic, or scaring me out of my wits by passing me on the right when I'm stopped or turning, I try to keep a couple of things in mind. "That bicyclist is helping to keep down the pollution level in this town, thus helping me to breathe better and enjoy a better quality life. That bicyclist is reducing the demand for gasoline (especially imported) and is giving OPEC something to worry about." Say these over and over again, and you'll be amazed at how your blood pressure drops. I even smile at bikers now! :) Art Winterbauer
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (04/29/85)
In article <1093@hound.UUCP> llfe@hound.UUCP (L.FENG) writes: >Reasons why you shouldn't pass cars on the right at a light: > >You are breaking traffic regulations Traffic regulations vary. I've never heard of this being outlawed. (thou considering the idiots that make the laws I'm sure that virtually *everything* is illegal somewhere) >You are unecessarily creating hostility towards other cyclists Passing cars in the 'bike lane' (read: 'shoulder' in most places :-( ) should be no different than cars passing other cars when there are multiple car-lanes. >You give motorists an excuse to run you off the road Sorry, Woodstock, passing someone is *not* an excuse for them to run you off the road. >You may get run over by someone turning right Not if you're alert. >It is difficult to see you and an unexpected move > therefore it is harder for the auto driver to avoid having an accident "unexpected move" ?? I always thought it was standard procedure. Bicycles are not that difficult to see. (At least in daylight, nighttime is another matter.) If I (in a car) pass a bike, and shortly later have to stop for a light, I assume that the bike is probably going to repass me, and try to leave a little extra room. If I'm going to turn, I check to see where the bike is first. (yes, I know the typical egocentric bicycles-don't-exists type in the 'lectra 225s don't think this way. Watch out for 'em!) Snoopy tektronix!mako!seifert
kehoe@reed.UUCP (Dave Kehoe) (04/29/85)
-- I am posting (with permission) a reply that Lance Spangler -- -- sent to me personally. -- Dave, There are no nice motorists. I have never found one, and don't expect to for some time to come. Two weeks ago, I was assaulted by four teenage thugs in a moving car. But the bright side of the story is that I got their tag number and one of the **assholes** got to spend a night in jail before his rich daddy bailed him out. You're right, there is no positive way to wrap up your article <1370@reed>, but there is a hopeful note. We can only hope that the elected officials are intelligent enough to see thru the ***crap*** these "born under the pedal" motorists throw our way every chance they get, whether it's at a stop light, or public hearing. I found the police officer who took my initial report, as well as the detective who handled the assault case to be most understanding of the matter. I was pleasantly surprised. But if you (The Bicycling Community near Reed) want something done, lobby your public officials. Present your town council with a proposed bicycle ordinance. You can beef up the laws against motorists who use a motor vehicle in the commission of an assault on a bicyclists. (Why Not! It's a crime to just hint you have a gun during an armed robbery here in Texas. Suddenly, just hinting it, you go from Robbery to ARMED Robbery.) While you may not be a child of the 60's, I've learned from the days between then and now that it IS possible to work with city hall. It's just damned frustrating. But there really are intelligent city officials out there who are sympathetic to the cause! UUCP: ihnp4!ut-sally!kvue!spangler Lance Spangler Telco: 512-459-1433 (Pvt. biz line) Senior Producer Austin, Texas The only thing we have to ((P. O. Box 9927)) fear is computing itself! :-)) zip------> 78766
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (04/29/85)
> I occasionally encounter drivers who are too close to the curb, so that > there's no room for me to get past them while they're stopped. Before > I decided that growing old was a worthwhile goal, I used to go around > these guys *on* *the* *left*, and then when the light changed I'd get > in front of them in the middle of the lane, and -g-o- -s-l-o-w- for > about 10-15 seconds. Just enough to get even without (I hoped) getting > the driver angry enough to deliberately run me over. There is no law that states that motorists must be a minimum distance from the curb to allow bicyclists the right of way, nor is it a widely known custom to do so. The best place to stop is slightly behind the first car and well in view of the others; this way, the one car that wouldn't notice you anyway (the front one - since you're in his blind spot no matter what) can avoid you, and the rest of the cars see you. It also helps if you signal your intentions. Please don't advocate vindictive practices that are dangerous and liable to draw only malice, not improved sensitivity to the REAL problems bicyclists have on the roads. -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ain't life a brook... Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron
sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (04/30/85)
>>The woman isn't *completely* a bozo --- the bike path down Venice Beach >>here in California has had a stack of injuries and few fatalities involving >>overzealous bicyclists running into pedestrians. It *can* happen. > >I've ridden that bike path plenty of times and have almost run into >people but sure wasn't MY fault. The path runs right through the middle >of the beach and in the summer there are thousands of people (and probably >more bozos :-)) wandering around. They pay no attention to where they are >walking and will walk right into the path of a bicycle. What am I supposed >to do, ride at 1 mph? Also, to show the stupidity of the beach goers, last >summer I was almost decapitated when someone decided to roll up their >kite string across the bike path - I saw it at the last second and slammed >on the brakes. They didn't even apologize! I had some similar experiences last summer riding along Lake Michigan in Chicago. At one point, the bicycle path goes through Lincoln Park, and the first few times I took it I went riding down the path at what I thought was a rather cautious pace. One day I rode between a mother and her toddler; the mother was unaware of my approach and there was about 6 feet between the two of them. But since I took the mother by surprise (and, I suspect, since she didn't know where exactly her child was), she swore at me and started ranting about dangerous bicycles. I know that nothing I did was unsafe, but I also know that there's no way that I could ever convince her of that. The problem is that, despite the fact that this (and similar) paths are designated as bicycle path, the general public doesn't pay attention to such things--they blithely assume that anything that isn't a street must be for general traffic (despite the posted signs and the variety of other places where they could walk, etc.). I decided after this that the grief just wasn't worth it, and took back to the streets. -- Scott Oaks I can not understand how a person of sensitivity Brown University can pass up an hour and a half trip to see a {decvax, ihnp4, allegra}!brunix!sdo bunch of battle-scarred $1500 claimers running at a dumpy Rhode Island track.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/01/85)
Well, another Yuppie heard from. Out of 100 bikers, there is always that one who screws it up for all of the rest. Funny thing is, us car drivers only remember the twit who pulled something stupid. Personally, I steer clear of bicycles as that next one is probably the one twit in a hundred. My personal grudge is seeing two bicyclists riding side by side on a narrow street. It is not only stupid and unsafe, it only causes car drivers to elevate their blood pressure by 20 points. I will try to safely get around them, but that guy in the 10 foot tall 4X4 behind me might not take their antics so kindly. "Well Officer, as I tried to pass, they swerved out in front of me. Do you think my insurance will cover the scratches on my fender?" T. C. Wheeler
szepesi@fluke.UUCP (Les Szepesi) (05/02/85)
> In article <1370@reed.UUCP> kehoe@reed.UUCP (Dave Kehoe) writes: > > > >ing 39mph in a 30mph zone? Should bicyclists obey traffic > >laws when I get run off the road for stopping at a stop > >sign? Who is he kidding? > > > Two quick points, bicyclists should always obey traffic laws. What > other people do should have no effect on how we deal with the law. I agree that obedience of the law should not be dependent on other's actions. Unfortunately, I see too many cyclists who don't! > Secondly, and I'm not accussing anyone of doing this, but I haven't > had nearly the problem with motorists since I stopped passing them on > the right. It seems motorists get annoyed when a bicyclist passes them > on the right (while waiting for a stoplight for instance) after this > motorist has just legally passed the bicycle. I personally don't blame > the motorist. Two responses here. In some states, it is perfectly legal for a bicycle to pass on the right. However, I recall that there is a restriction against passing on the right *within* an intersection. I'm not positive, but I think that Washington is one of these states... I get just as annoyed when I'm waiting at a red light, and cars go out of there way to do a "right turn on red" around me. This is probably legal, too, but that doesn't make it any less annoying. What I'm saying is that people will get annoyed at legal as well as illegal actions, if it goes against there concept of the way the world should behave. > One route I frequently travel has a nearby bike path that I used to ignore, > I noticed a lot of hostility from motorists along this particular stretch > of road. One day I was driving down this street and was annoyed at how > a bike was really slowing down traffic, my first thought was "Why doesn't > he use the bike path just one block away? It was put there just to > relieve this problem." Agreed, bike paths are probably intended in many cases to make traffic flow freely rather than protect the cyclist. If the bike lane is a separate lane on the road surface, I usually have no objection to riding in it, other than the large amount of glass and gravel that accumulates do to the lack of sweeping action by passing cars. Bike *paths* are another story. I don't agree that a cyclist should be required to use a bike path that is a separate entity from the road itself. For one, the quality of construction is usually poor, and after one or two winters, is an undulating ribbon of asphalt. Good examples of this is the path on the north side of the Charles River running from MIT and Harvard to Watertown, and the Esplanade in Boston. Another problem with bike paths is the cyclists. I consider the Burke-Gilman Trail and the Sammamish River Trail the *most* dangerous places to ride in the Seattle area. They become even worse on a sunny, crowded summer day. Many riders wear the equivalent of Walkman's, so they cannot hear. Another group insists on riding two and three abreast, even when there is on-coming traffic. Another group insists on riding 20mph+ pace lines among cyclists, joggers, walkers and pets on leashes. Last year, when I was commuting to work in December, I had to ride both of these trails in the dark. I'm talking dark, not dusk. The number of riders without lights of any kind was not insignificant. There were a few times I was surprised by unseen riders. I had less of a problem on the 'Missing Link', where you have to ride a four lane highway between the two trails... I see many young parents with small children riding on these specific trails. I am amazed that there haven't been any serious injuries with the chaos. Sorry for the degression, but I believe there are good reasons for not riding bike paths until the situation changes. Fortunately, as cyclists, we have the ability to remove the most serious of these problems with a little common sense. In the meantime, I'll take the road. Les Szepesi
era@hao.UUCP (Ed Arnold) (05/04/85)
> I don't understand... what's *wrong* with rolling up to the stop light > past the stopped cars? If the only problem is that some drivers resent > my doing so, tough shits. > > I occasionally encounter drivers who are too close to the curb, so that > there's no room for me to get past them while they're stopped. Before > I decided that growing old was a worthwhile goal, I used to go around > these guys *on* *the* *left*, and then when the light changed I'd get > in front of them in the middle of the lane, and -g-o- -s-l-o-w- for > about 10-15 seconds. Just enough to get even without (I hoped) getting > the driver angry enough to deliberately run me over. > -- > David Canzi What's wrong with rolling up to the light is that there *really* are some motorists who resent it and will act accordingly. What good can deliberately baiting motorists (as you describe in your second paragraph) possibly do, other than to satisfy some childish urge? I'm making these comments because I ride and bike and would hate to think some motorist decided to use his 3000 lbs. of metal on me because he had an encounter with someone like you. If you visit Boulder, please try to cool it, OK? -- Ed Arnold NCAR/SCD (Nat'l Ctr for Atmospheric Research/Scientific Computing Div.) USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 BELL: 303-497-1253 UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!scd-sa!era
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/06/85)
In article <1513@hao.UUCP> era@hao.UUCP (Ed Arnold) writes: >What's wrong with rolling up to the light is that there *really* are >some motorists who resent it and will act accordingly. I was aware that there are some drivers who resent it when a bicycle passes them on the right while they are stopped at a red light. I just thought that they were a small minority, and I could see no good reason for them to feel that way. As someone has pointed out, it's difficult to pass a bike legally in heavy traffic (you have to change lanes) and having to pass the same cyclist twice is therefore pretty annoying. In deciding whether or not to obey a law, I have to understand its purpose, and agree with it (though I'm also responsive to threats of punishment). In this case, it appears I have to think it over a bit more, and maybe reverse my previous decision... > What good can >deliberately baiting motorists (as you describe in your second paragraph) >possibly do, other than to satisfy some childish urge? Oh, gosh, everybody's misinterpreting my motives... baiting? Nah. Revenge. >I'm making these comments because I ride and bike and would hate >to think some motorist decided to use his 3000 lbs. of metal on >me because he had an encounter with someone like you. If you >visit Boulder, please try to cool it, OK? Not to worry. I discontinued the practice of deliberately slowing down drivers who had slowed me down, for the reason I stated in my first posting on this subject. If I should visit Boulder, I'll behave myself. -- David Canzi It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us. Peter De Vries
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (05/06/85)
I've been reading these postings with some interest and, having purchased my asbestos suit, am ready to post my own experiences and feelings. First, I am what I and most of my acquaintences consider a very accomplished cyclist. I was a somewhat successful racer and I still train alot of miles. I also live in California so you can interpret my comments with whatever bias that imposes. Well, here goes. In a typical ride I am passed by an average of 50 cars an hour. 49 pass without incident, the other one doing no more than blowing the horn-- please note that that is not always a sign of aggression; they may be friends, other bikies or members of the opposite sex that like your lycra shorts :-). In 13 years of riding I've had a total of one unprovoked "assault" which I turned aside by (a) looking like I was ready to kill and (b) calmly pointing out to the assaultor that none of the other cars on the road had a problem like his. As far as provoked assaults go, I've had two, one with the vehicle (a half-hearted attempt, reported to and handled by the police) and one with a lead pipe (he missed and gave up). These were "provoked" because I was violating a traffic rule and made a rude gesture at at the motorist to boot! Conclusion: most drivers are OK-- not great-- but OK and really don't want to run anyone down. Its the responsibility of the cyclist to anticipate and not expect that his "rights" will be honored by motorists with any greater frequency when he's on the bike than when driving his car. Bike defensively! Now for the other bike riders on the road. Incidents with other "cyclists"-- and I use the term loosely-- are too numerous to recount. I *never* use bike trails for this reason. My estimate is that approximately 50% of the riders on the roads at any time are an extreme hazard to themselves and others. Running stop signs, riding the wrong way, weaving across the bike and car lanes, plugged into Prince on the Walkman, and so on. If the percentage of bad drivers was equal to the percentage of bad cyclists we all would have been killed years ago! Unfortunately, these cyclists don't read this net, or probably any other cycling publication and are probably blissfully unaware of the effect they have on the serious riding population both in the attitudes of drivers and in the acts of legislators. The only solution I know is to inform these people in person, on the road of my attitude towards them. I can't help but believe it makes them think a little bit the next time they ride. At least none of them has come at me with a lead pipe yet! Fred Klink Varian
kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (05/09/85)
xxx I agree the other cyclists are a major traffic hazard. See the book *Effective Cycling* by John Forester (MIT Press) for many reasons to avoid bike paths and other dangerous roadways. Here in New Jersey, however, cars drivers are also a problem. I have been cut off several times recently (once in 10 hours?). Now that I've learned to ride several feet from the curb going into intersections, I haven't been cut off from behind, but people will still turn into my path. New Jersey law, by the way, says you have to ride near the right side of the road, but not so near that your saftey is indangered. I've also had car drivers and passengers take more aggressive, unprovoked action. Last weekend, a kid leaned out his window as his car passed me and yelled as load as he could into my ear. Once last year, someone threw a smoke bomb at me and 2 friends (one of us almost ran into a telephone pole before he could stop). What can you do? A car weighs a 100 times more than your bike and can leave several times faster. I just keep my eyes open. -- Kenton Lee Bell Labs - WB ihnp4!wbscc!kfl or ihnp4!hoxna!kfl
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (05/14/85)
Gee, this discussion leaves me a bit depressed.
I used to like to think that those who rode bikes were at least a
bit more environmentally conscious. This included the personalities
of those who bicycled. I've seen other riders yell [what I regard
as] needless obsenities at cars [not too close, but windows open],
and there will always be the cyclists and joggers who try to run
red lights and nearly get hit. On the other hand, I saw a woman
throw from her car on 101 into the freeway [no bikes involved]
while driving to Berkeley the other day. I've no idea whether she
survived or not, but she was alive when I left [after the paramedics
arrived]. This isn't just hatred; it's insanity. It's an issue
beyond bicycles and cars.
--eugene miya
"A bicycle rider on the highway of life....."
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
@ames-vmsb.ARPA:emiya@jup.DECNETeugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (05/14/85)
Oh, I want to add "insensitive traffic engineers" to my previous
posting. These are the guys who program the traffic lights so
you see "DON'T WALK" before you take three steps into the intersection
and don't give a cyclist time to pedal half way across a street.
I saw a moped nearly hit a bicycle after such a sudden light change.
The cars could clearly see and stop, but the moped driver coming in fast on
the inside could not see the cycle. On first reflection, I thought
this was dumb of the moped driver, but it was even dumber on the part
of the traffic engineers in Mountain View, CA.
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
@ames-vmsb.ARPA:emiya@jup.DECNET
[The usual disclaimers hold.]draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn) (05/17/85)
After reading some of the discussion on this subject a couple of things come
to mind.
I drive a car a lot and I'm almost always irritated by bicyclists on
the road. Sometimes this is because of stupidity on the part of the cyclist,
but usually it's because I'm afraid of them. You see, my car weighs 2 tons
and doesn't turn terribly quick because of it. At least not compared to
bikes, which seem to make instantaneous right-angle turns. It's easy to
imagine a bike swerving into my car before I could react.
I don't mean to imply that cyclists are too stupid to watch where
they are going, after all, we drivers manage to hit each other regularly
because our minds are on something else, or a dog runs out in front of us,
or something.
Some cyclist here said that he/she faces more of a hazard from other
bikers, often running into an errant cyclist. (I imagine that the freedom
from serious injury, and the resulting low level of regulation, is
one of the things that makes cycling so much fun.) Unfortunately, some
bikers behave that way on the road, and when they hit cars instead of
other bikes, things can get ugly.
I suppose that in the end it's a matter of communication. How do
a cyclist and I make our intentions known to each other? When I'm coming
up behind a cyclist, I honk my horn to let him know I'm going to pass.
Usually he will move to the right, or wave, or something, and then I pass.
That's communication. Occasionally, however, he flips me the finger. That's
not communication; and it hardly proves my superior communication skills/
morality/intellect to hit him with my car :-)
Part of the idea behind the Heimlich maneuver is to make sure thet
EVERYONE knows what it is. One thing that Heimlch tried to do was to establish
a universal way to tell somebody that you are choking -- put your hand to
your throat. It would be great if some general ways to communicate
could be taught to drivers and cyclists.
With that in mind, there are probably a few signals already in
existance that are nearly impossible to interpret. Some thought
on this would probably help the problem.
Mark Draughn
p.s. Comments would be appreciated, flames will be endured.fish@ihlpg.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (05/17/85)
> Gee, this discussion leaves me a bit depressed. > I used to like to think that those who rode bikes were at least a > bit more environmentally conscious. This included the personalities > of those who bicycled. I've seen other riders yell [what I regard > as] needless obsenities at cars [not too close, but windows open]. *** AC T YOUR AGE *** Last week I was riding along one of our remoter country roads. Hearing a (*> sigh <*) horn behind me, I gestured for the car to pass, without squeezing over any further than the two feet of road I was already using. A woman in the front seat of the car yelled "GET OVER! in an angry voice, to which I promptly replied "F___ YOU!," which is my standard reply to that directive, especially when there is no oncoming traffic and plenty of room to pass. As for the "needlessness" of the obscenity, it makes me feel a whole heck of a lot better, and serves to inform the public that I'm not going to take any crap like that just because I'm trying to get some exercise. I signal my turns and stop for red lights, and I've got as much right to use the roads as anybody else. If I'm going to get yelled at by people who are annoyed at losing three seconds of their precious time, I'm going to yell back with the foulest invective I can muster. I used to be mellower, but after getting yelled at, honked at, and run off the road a few hundred times, I'm a bit less affable. __ / \ \__/ Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihlpg!fish
daveb@rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) (05/22/85)
> Last week I was riding along one of our remoter country roads. Hearing > a (*> sigh <*) horn behind me, I gestured for the car to pass, without > squeezing over any further than the two feet of road I was already > using. A woman in the front seat of the car yelled "GET OVER! in an > angry voice, to which I promptly replied "F___ YOU!,"... I did that. Once. Flipped him the bird too. The guy slammed on his brakes, hopped out of the car and punched me into the ground as I tried to pass. My riding partner was a witness, so we rode down to the police station to file a complaint. The Officer Friendly behind the desk said, "You provoked him," and told us to beat it. I've been a lot less aggressive on the bike since then. -- {amdahl|dual|sun|zehntel}\ | There was no fight. {ucbvax|decvax}!mtxinu---->!rtech!daveb | He hit me, and I went down. ihnp4!{phoenix|amdahl}___/
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (05/23/85)
Bob Fishell writes : > Last week I was riding along one of our remoter country roads. Hearing > a (*> sigh <*) horn behind me, I gestured for the car to pass, without > squeezing over any further than the two feet of road I was already > using. A woman in the front seat of the car yelled "GET OVER! in an > angry voice, to which I promptly replied "F___ YOU!," which is my standard > reply to that directive, especially when there is no oncoming traffic and > plenty of room to pass. > ..... I have found that recently it has become a common practice to flame car drivers for being inconsiderate to bicyclists. Who says that bicyclists have any decency ? Why does a bicycle have to be driven on on a road for MOTOR vehicles. They are unstable ( I always fear that the guy on the bicycle will fall in front of my car and that causes me to overtake a bike with max. possible distance between us ) and can be unbalanced by a ditch, stones etc. If the bicyclists have any consideration for their auto driving brethren then they should strive to remain as far as possible from the road and should use it ONLY in case of not having any flat ground on the side of the road. Secondly, a bike rider on a road is causing a break in the normal flow of traffic. Well, even at residential areas the speed limit is about 25-30 MPH and most bikers are travelling at ~15-18mph. In my opinion, anything not capable of maintaining normal traffic flow speed should be outlawed from that area. If there is a clear road and there is a bike in my lane then it is a big IRRITATION for me to slow down to cross them. This is the same irritation I feel when there is a stalled car in my lane or an accident and it always happens when I am in a hurry to get somewhere. Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to occupy a full lane. What a gross waste of precious road space during office hours. Cycles should be OUTLAWED from the main streets and heavy traffic throughfares like they are from freeways. I am amused at the audacity of the bike riders to insist that they will inconvenience others and claim that as their right to remain on the road. For those who insist on their right to remain on the road, let me give the example of a tomb in Rome with the inscription "Here lies the driver who had his right of way". It is important to remember that if the other guy does not give you right of way, then you don't have any !! So for the bike riders - If the automobile guys do not respect your right then you will not be a winner if you get entangled with them. Also, before you jump to conclusions, let me tell you that I neither yell or abuse bikers, nor have I had an accident so far with anything but rather all these emotions are built inside me whenever I see a lone bike in my lane. I always wonder, why it had to be my lane ? I neither contemplate nor attempt to hurt any biker but only hope that he doesn't lose his balance when I am about to pass him - my phobia. Hate mail is most welcome !!! sanjay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. I doubt if my employer even wants to hear about them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res.
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (05/24/85)
Sanjay Tikku writes about his perspective on bikes... Well I as a bicycle rider object to cars driving on the streets that I am on.. Roads are meant for public transportation (not necessarily motor.. is seems to me the public pay for them) The fact that they spew out carbon monoxide, lead etc (which endanger both yourself myself and especially children's brains) are a waste of fossil fuels, a resource that if not my children, my childrens children will be denied, is definitely an inefficient form of transportation (I take it that you don't take the bus...) I would welcome relegating cars to freeways and country roads where they belong.... :-) The point Mr Tikku is that we have a right to the roads much as you do.. We can learn to share, and by wise planning I can bicycle along with you while you destroy the environment and rape the resources of the earth (note, no smileface) Taking away bicycles would increase the demands on the road system People have to get to work somehow.. The city of Montreal in an innovative arrangement is putting bike racks on buses to allow people to cross transportation options and reducing cars on the road.. I hope that this isn't construed as hate mail, Mr Tikku, in this group discussion, with arguement is the norm.. You might like to know that florida is the worst state for bike fatalities in the states, over a hundred last year, the state of florida views this as a problem and believes that it should be doing more for the cyclist... If you want to alleivate yourself of your phobia, sir, I would suggest you take up biking, it's generally good for the nerves... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>
kehoe@reed.UUCP (Dave Kehoe) (05/26/85)
> Cycles should be OUTLAWED from the main streets and heavy traffic > throughfares like they are from freeways. > Bicycles are unstable [and inherently dangerous]... You've obviously never ridden a bicycle. > Secondly, a bike rider on a road is causing a break in the normal flow > of traffic. Well, even at residential areas the speed limit is about > 25-30 MPH and most bikers are travelling at ~15-18mph. > It is a big IRRITATION for me to slow down to pass them. I agree that bicycles don't mix well with motorized traffic. My original posting ("Bicycles, Violence, Hatred") was about a proposed bicycle route here in Portland, Oregon, that would get bicycles out of the driving lanes of a certain street, and how residents on that street are adamantly opposed to the proposal. The gist of my original posting was that bicycle-haters don't want bicycles anywhere, whether on streets or on bicycle routes. Would you be in favor of a bicycle route in front of your house? > Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to > occupy a full lane. What a gross waste of precious road space during > office hours. > I always take the full lane because I want 1) drivers to see me 2) drivers not to think that they can safely pass me without changing lanes. > I am amused at the audacity of the bike riders to insist that they will > inconvenience others and claim that as their right to remain on the road. > It is important to remember that if the other > guy does not give you right of way, then you don't have any !! Try reading the Constitution of the United States. The rights of free speech, freedom to vote, freedom to ride my bicycle on public roads, etc., are mine even if you try to take them away from me. > ...all these emotions are built inside me whenever I see a lone bike > in my lane. I neither > contemplate nor attempt to hurt any biker but only hope that he doesn't > lose his balance when I am about to pass him - my phobia. May I suggest a cure for your phobia? Try riding a bicycle to work.
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (05/26/85)
In article <972@peora.UUCP> san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) writes: > > ...Why does a bicycle have to be driven on > on a road for MOTOR vehicles. They are unstable ( I always fear that > the guy on the bicycle will fall in front of my car and that causes me > to overtake a bike with max. possible distance between us ) and can > be unbalanced by a ditch, stones etc. If the bicyclists have any > consideration for their auto driving brethren then they should strive to > remain as far as possible from the road and should use it ONLY in case > of not having any flat ground on the side of the road. > > Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to > occupy a full lane. What a gross waste of precious road space during > office hours. > > Cycles should be OUTLAWED from the main streets and heavy traffic > throughfares like they are from freeways. > > Hate mail is most welcome !!! > >Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku >UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san >CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY >USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; > 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 >Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res. I encourage you to pick up your state's vehicle handbook. Look in the handbook to where it tells you that bicycles are vehicles, and have a right to drive on roads. (I'm assuming it's legal in any reasonable state, 'though it just became law in Texas 16 months ago. But then again, I don't think Texas is a reasonable place to live :-). If you consider a 15 lb. slow-moving vehicle dangerous to drive near, I can't help but wonder how you react when a multi-ton 18-wheeler doing 90mph gets on your tail on the freeway. Talk about your irrational fears. And while we're talking about "unstable vehicles," why don't we just legislate motor- cycles out of existence. Yeah, and pedestrians... they only have two legs, and I've even seen some fall down. And satellites; they don't even HAVE wheels, and just think about what one of those suckers falling on the hood of your spiffy automobile would do to your hood ornament. Oh, and one more thing: Does your employer know that you spend your "office hours" driving around the city looking for bikers to worry about? -- - jvop {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
barrys@tekecs.UUCP (Barry Steel) (05/28/85)
> > I am amused at the audacity of the bike riders to insist that they will > inconvenience others and claim that as their right to remain on the road. Well, excuse me for livin'. I'm sorry that you feel the whole world is for your convenience and no other purpose. I would imagine you would also tail-gate me into the ground while I drive along the interstate at 55.0 MPH. I appreciate the fact that you haven't run over any bikers, but I do wonder what will happen some day when you are REALLY in a hurry. Too bad for you to be in such a hurry, I don't envy the people who choose a "visit ten countries in five days" life style. barry steel
mink@cfa.UUCP (Doug Mink) (05/28/85)
> I have found that recently it has become a common practice to flame > car drivers for being inconsiderate to bicyclists. Who says that > bicyclists have any decency ? Why does a bicycle have to be driven on > on a road for MOTOR vehicles[?] Those roads, at least where I live, were for bicycles before there were cars (and horses and pedestrians before that). > They are unstable (I always fear that the guy on the bicycle will > fall in front of my car... While I've seen kids on bicycles wobble a bit, very few of the bicyclists you'll encounter on the open road are 'unstable.' A fast moving bicycle is more maneuverable than a car, and on a rough road, may move sideways to avoid potholes, but it is *very* unlikely to fall over in front of you. > [A bicyclist should] remain as far as possible from the road and > should use it ONLY in case of not having any flat ground on the side > of the road. Most bicycles used on roads are meant to be used on roads. They have narrow tires which do not work on gravel, grass, or dirt, which are the common borders of roads. In Massachusetts, at least, bicyclists are supposed to ride as far right as is practical. If it is unsafe for a car to pass me, I'll take up the whole lane until it is safe; if the road is narrow for a long time, I'll move over to let the car by as soon as I can. Bicycles have a legal right to the roads for many reasons. We were there first, in the 1880's and 90's, fighting to get better raods built. Roadmaps fold to the size that they do so that they'll fit in bicycle handlebar map cases. In urban areas, bicycles are the most efficient form of transportation for individuals. They don't smog up the atmosphere or consume valuable petrochemicals, or require vast areas of concrete in which to be left for 50% of the time they're used. Society, with a little convincing from bicycle/ecologists, has decided that slowing down traffic a bit (and I can't believe that bicycles are so populous around you that this is more than a minor nuisance) is a small price to pay for the clean, cheap transportation they provide. > Secondly, a bike rider on a road is causing a break in the normal flow > of traffic. See above. > Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to > occupy a full lane. What a gross waste of precious road space during > office hours. > > Cycles should be OUTLAWED from the main streets and heavy traffic > throughfares like they are from freeways. > > I am amused at the audacity of the bike riders to insist that they will > inconvenience others and claim that as their right to remain on the road. It is true that bicyclists are a bit self-righteous about their right to the roads, but battling cars for space every day is hard work, since yours a very common, though not frequently as clearly stated, feeling. If you're driving your car less than 5 miles to work every day, try a bike. It probably won't take more than 10 minutes longer, you'll get some exercise, and you too can feel superior to the motorists passing by. In any event, remember that bicyclists are like automobile drivers--there are good ones and there are bad ones. Most bicyclists learned how to deal with traffic in the school of hard knocks; many have not been doing it for long and may have a few knocks left. If you want to do something constructive, convince your state or municipality to provide more bicycle education in the schools, beyond the neighborhood riding taught in elementary schools. -- -biking on the roads year 'round in Boston Doug Mink Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Boston Area Bicycle Coalition
kehoe@reed.UUCP (Dave Kehoe) (05/28/85)
I thought I'd heard everything, but yesterday two of my elderly neighbors came by argue some more about the proposed bicycle route (the proposal goes before the City Council Wednesday May 29). The lady told me that she is opposed to the bicycle route (which will go in front of our houses) because when she is backing out of her driveway she can't see bicyclists coming and is afraid that she'll back into a bicyclist and s/he will sue her for damages. I told her that if she can't see traffic coming, she shouldn't be driving her car. "Not drive my car?!," she said, "Ha Ha. You must be a comedian." What can you do with [to] neighbors like that?
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (05/28/85)
In article <132@iitcs.UUCP> draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn) writes: > I don't mean to imply that cyclists are too stupid to watch where >they are going, after all, we drivers manage to hit each other regularly >because our minds are on something else, or a dog runs out in front of us, >or something. Yes, there ARE unintelligent/non-law-abiding bicyclists and motorists; however, people in both groups tend to emphasize the jerks in the other. > When I'm coming >up behind a cyclist, I honk my horn to let him know I'm going to pass. >Usually he will move to the right, or wave, or something, and then I pass. >That's communication. Occasionally, however, he flips me the finger. That's >not communication; and it hardly proves my superior communication skills/ >morality/intellect to hit him with my car :-) > Almost all bicyclists I know (myself included) interpret a car honk as an extremely rude thing. (Consider for a moment in what situations one generally honks a horn... usually when somebody turns in front of you, or stops in the middle of the lane, or otherwise does something that you think is, um, "inconsiderate".) Although I personally reserve "the finger" for extremely upsetting moments when I can't control my rage (e.g. I'm nearly run down), don't be surprised if you don't get good reactions to your honking. However, if the 'cyclist IS riding in such a manner that you cannot safely pass, and does not notice you on his/her tail after a while, a *brief* honk would be appropriate, I guess. There is one thing that I try to do on those occasions when I use my car that I haven't seen suggested yet: try to avoid those streets marked "bike route." It's generally quicker using other roads anyway, and it just may cut down on "inter-vehicular" incidents. My personal feeling is that if BOTH motorists and bicyclists would use turn signals consistently, obey traffic signs and signals, and be generally more tolerant, getting between our respective points A and B would be a bit more enjoyable for everybody. (If only everybody was like me... :-) -- - jvop {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
eju@drutx.UUCP (UrygaE) (05/29/85)
A Sanjay Tikku posted an article in net.bicycles that at first infuriated me. But then I realized it was written out of ignorance. Sanjay wrote about the roads for MOTOR vehicles, about bicycles being in the way when in a hurry, about bikes should'nt be allowed to occupy a full lane, about inconvenience and irritation, and several references to "my lane" without any reference to what granted ownership. Apparently Sanjay Tikku is still living in the stone age where the person with the biggest club(in this case a car) can conquer someone with a smaller club(a bicycle). Just because your car is bigger than my bicycle and CAN easily push my bicycle out of your way, that doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to do so. We are supposed to be living in a civilized society where reasonable laws dictate how we interact with each other. Those laws say we all have an EQUAL right to use public right of ways. Whether we choose do drive a car, or drive a bicycle doesn't confer any superiority upon one or the other. As such, we need to cooperate with each other in order to use the public facilities provided. Ill admit many roads aren't designed to accomodate both bicyles and cars easily. We keep hearing from our government how we should drive less and conserve fuel and clean up the air but the powers that be refuse to even consider adding a couple of feet of asphalt to the curb lane to make sharing easier. So until we have better facilities we'll have to share what we have. You know its funny, when I'm bicycling home from work, enjoying my closeness to nature and a car comes up behind me and forces me to the extreme right side of the road, I, like Sanjay feel inconvenienced and irritated that someone is in MY LANE. Using some of Sanjays irrational logic, if I was there first, maybe its really my lane. And why can't CARS be OUTLAWED from all but the freeways. But we all know that's not reasonable either. So why cant we live like the civilized human beings we're supposed to be and get along with each other, as long as REAL RIGHTS aren't being violated. Let's look beyond the car and the bicycle and see the person and deal with each other at that level. I'm willing to give it a try, are you Sanjay? P.S. I'm glad to hear Sanjay that at least you're not the type of person who hit me in the back with a water baloon from a pickup truck yesterday.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/29/85)
> Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to > occupy a full lane. Well, I'll admit that there is a certain logic to this, but I ride down the middle of the lane in city traffic for my own safety. If I hug the edge of the lane, that's just begging people to try and squeeze their car past me, whether or not there really is enough room. If I ride down the middle of the lane I undeniably claim the lane to myself and make people in cars give me a wider berth. Also, I have this strange aversion to having parked car doors open in my face. > What a gross waste of precious road space ... it is to have just 1 person in most of the cars on the street! -- allegra!phri!roy (Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (05/29/85)
In article <132@iitcs.UUCP> draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn) writes: >... When I'm coming up behind a cyclist, I honk my horn to let him know I'm >going to pass. Usually he will move to the right, or wave, or something, and >then I pass. That's communication. Occasionally, however, he flips me the >finger. That's not communication... A couple of short taps from at least 100 feet is one sort of communication. ("Beep, beep!") I communicate back in the same friendly, polite manner. When a car waits until they are right next to me to lay on the horn, ("FIIIIIAAAAAAAMMMMMM!") they get the finger, which is still communicating back in the same manner. -- :::::: Jan Steinman Box 1000, MS 61-161 (w)503/685-2843 :::::: :::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans Wilsonville, OR 97070 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::
lrd@drusd.UUCP (L. R. DuBroff) (05/30/85)
>> Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to >> occupy a full lane. > Well, I'll admit that there is a certain logic to this, but I >ride down the middle of the lane in city traffic for my own safety. If >I hug the edge of the lane, that's just begging people to try and >squeeze their car past me, whether or not there really is enough room. >If I ride down the middle of the lane . . . If a motorcyclist may speak in net.bicycle, I'd like to say that as an instructor certified by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, one of the lane position strategies we teach is positioning yourself such that you make it clear that you own the lane you are in and you are not going to share it with anyone. I'm pretty religious about this and generally (unless there are considerations that make other positions safer) position myself just to the left of the center of the lane, putting myself directly in line with an automobile driver's line of sight. In spite of this, the inevitable happened a couple of weeks ago -- I was waiting for a red light in the right-hand lane, stopped as usual to the left of the center of the lane, when some damned maniac decided he just couldn't wait to make his right turn on red. He tried to create another lane, squeezing between me and the car on my left. Not enough room, and even this eighty-two year old jerk (lots of driving experience, right?) wasn't going to ram the car on his left, so he did the logical thing -- ran over my foot (thanks to the MSF for preaching about protective boots), laid my elbow open, and did over $1,400 damage to my BMW. To top it off, as soon as he realized what he had done, he freaked out and ran the red light to escape, almost causing a massive pileup in the intersection which had heavy cross-traffic. The moral -- stay away from Ford Mavericks driven by octegenarians in a hurry, particularly if the license plate is Colorado RW-5112.
paulson@ihu1g.UUCP (Bill Paulson) (05/30/85)
> I'd like to say that as an > instructor certified by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, one of the lane > position strategies we teach is positioning yourself such that you make > it clear that you own the lane you are in and you are not going to share > it with anyone. I'm pretty religious about this and generally (unless > there are considerations that make other positions safer) position myself > just to the left of the center of the lane, putting myself directly in > line with an automobile driver's line of sight. While the idea of making other vehicles that share the road take notice is equally applicable to motorcycles and bicycles, motorcycles and bikes differ in that bicycles are often moving slower than the surrounding traffic, often by as much as 15 miles per hour. A car driver passing a motorcycle in the same lane is clearly foolish; a driver passing a bike in the same lane has some reasonable justification. As a bike rider, I'll assert my rights to a lane where it isn't safe for cars to pass, for example at intersections, and move over to allow cars past when it is safe. Bill Paulson ..ihnp4!ihu1g!paulson -- Bill Paulson ihu1g!paulson IH 2D311 x6609
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (05/31/85)
> > I have found that recently it has become a common practice to flame > car drivers for being inconsiderate to bicyclists. Who says that > bicyclists have any decency ? Why does a bicycle have to be driven on > on a road for MOTOR vehicles. They are unstable ( I always fear that > the guy on the bicycle will fall in front of my car and that causes me > to overtake a bike with max. possible distance between us ) and can > be unbalanced by a ditch, stones etc. If the bicyclists have any > consideration for their auto driving brethren then they should strive to > remain as far as possible from the road and should use it ONLY in case > of not having any flat ground on the side of the road. > > Secondly, a bike rider on a road is causing a break in the normal flow > of traffic. Well, even at residential areas the speed limit is about > 25-30 MPH and most bikers are travelling at ~15-18mph. In my opinion, > anything not capable of maintaining normal traffic flow speed should be > outlawed from that area. If there is a clear road and there is a bike in > my lane then it is a big IRRITATION for me to slow down to cross them. This > is the same irritation I feel when there is a stalled car in my lane or > an accident and it always happens when I am in a hurry to get somewhere. > > Thirdly, a bike is very narrow and therefore should not be allowed to > occupy a full lane. What a gross waste of precious road space during > office hours. > > Cycles should be OUTLAWED from the main streets and heavy traffic > throughfares like they are from freeways. > > I am amused at the audacity of the bike riders to insist that they will > inconvenience others and claim that as their right to remain on the road. > For those who insist on their right to remain on the road, let me give > the example of a tomb in Rome with the inscription "Here lies the driver > who had his right of way". It is important to remember that if the other > guy does not give you right of way, then you don't have any !! So for the > bike riders - If the automobile guys do not respect your right then you > will not be a winner if you get entangled with them. > > Also, before you jump to conclusions, let me tell you that I neither yell > or abuse bikers, nor have I had an accident so far with anything but > rather all these emotions are built inside me whenever I see a lone bike > in my lane. I always wonder, why it had to be my lane ? I neither > contemplate nor attempt to hurt any biker but only hope that he doesn't > lose his balance when I am about to pass him - my phobia. > > Hate mail is most welcome !!! > > sanjay First of all where did the idea come from that roads were intended for automobiles and not for biclycles. Historically, roads were originally intended for bicycles and autos were considered a nuisance. Secondly, as a tax payer I pay for the maintanence and patrolling of roads. As an avid bicylce commutter, I am paying for the destruction of roads, the enforcement of automobile ordinances, and the complications of noise, pollution, and environmental and social suicide forced upon me and my neighbors by automobiles, without contributing mightily and thoughtlessly to the grotesque problem. To put it bluntly, I am being ripped off by the over spending of my tax dollars on issues which I not only try not to contribute to, but, in fact, contribute to increasing my danger in riding to and from work and play. I resent the idea that I do not belong on the road, when it is I who am susidizing your dependence on the automobile. Enough said of that. Bicylists do not and should not ride as far to the right of the road for a very simple reason. It is dangerous. An experienced bicyclists greatest danger is the motorist. His/her best defense is to be visible and alert. The right side of the road is exactly where a motorist, and, I might add, pedestrian are not looking for traffic. Another reason for not riding far to the right is, of course, the feared opening of car doors into ones lane. A less obvious reason for not riding too far to the right is that in order to avoid other obstacles that are forever being placed in the road ( broken glass, pot holes, etc.), that are esp. prevalent on the right side of the road, it is better to swerve away from traffic than into it. Still another reason for taking up a lane is that if you don't motorists will often take that as meaning that you not only don't belong on the road but that you're not on the road; and, therefore, they can cut in front of you, force you off the road, and assume that you can stop on a dime and are traveling at about 2 mph. All of this aside, it is important that bicyclists and motorists cooperate and communicate on the road, because it belongs to BOTH of us. A bicyclist must attempt to be visible for his or her own saftey but he/she must also be considerate of the fact that we generally travel more slowly than automobiles and, therefore, be prepared to move to the right, or even stop if necessary, in order to permit cars to pass us. Furthermore, if a bicyclist wants to be treated as a slow moving vehicle, with all the rights due one, they must act like one. That is, they must obey all the traffic rules an regulations prescribed to vehicles on the road. If they don't, and they often do not, they should have no reason to expect to be treated in the same manner as a slow moving vehicle. Motorists, for their part, must be on the lookout for pedestrians and bicyclists. If they want to pass, they should do so carefully and possibly honk their horns to inform the bicyclist of their intentions; and, by the way, not after they have passed as an expression of frustration. ( It appears to me that the inability to communicate and the frustrations of modern life are, at the very least, mirrored, if not intimately related, to the dependence on the automobile.) However, and this is an important point, this attitude and situation is absolutely no different than that for any other slow moving vehicle (Are you listening, Sanjay). Absolutely no different. If we were to follow Sanjay's rule, half of the people over 70 wouldn't be permitted on the road. We are all in too much of a rush to get from one place to another without any good reason. Automobiles lock us inside steel cases in order to protect us from our environment. But that isolation is also dangerous not only for bicyclists but for OUR community. What does it say for the possibilities of a sane and happy society if motorists and bicyclists cannot learn to live together. What does it say for the possibilities of blacks and whites, rich and poor, young and old, Catholic and Jew, Russian and American.... ever, ever learning to live together. Believe or not, I honestly believe that by riding my bicycle as much as I can is intimately related to dealing with these problems; and, furthermore, the emotional and economic dependence on the automobile confounds the problem. Bill Powers
matt@absolut.UUCP (06/02/85)
eju at drutx writes in response to Sanjay Tikku: >the RIGHT to do so. We are supposed to be living in a civilized society >where reasonable laws dictate how we interact with each other. Those laws >say we all have an EQUAL right to use public right of ways. >Whether we choose do drive a car, or drive a bicycle doesn't confer any >superiority upon one or the other. As such, we need to cooperate with each >other in order to use the public facilities provided. Ill admit many roads This strikes me as the most sensible & intelligent thing written on the subject so far. We as serious cyclists have an agenda we should be furthering, on the bike and off, and we need the cooperation of the noncycling public. Regarding the use of obscenities, while "giving the finger", and shouting "F___ YOU!" may be fair, in the sense of equal treatment, it is not just- ifiable. It does not improve the position of cycling a legitimate trans- portation. It does not increase goodwill of the non-cycling public. Worst of all, it spreads language pollution and subjects innocent bystanders to unnecessary vulgarity (a redundant expression to be sure). I'll admit to having, under provocation & the influence of adrenalin, used some of the language described above. I give the driver the benefit of the doubt these days, tho. I especially avoid blowing my top at a horn blower because some turkey cut me off a few miles back. Are we so sensitive that we cannot bear a few decibels of noise? As good as it might feel to let of some steam, it is far more satisfying to help a driver maneuver safely past you in traffic with hand signals, or to stop and give a broken down motorist or novice cyclist a hand. ===>>>matt "some of my best friends are motorists."
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (06/03/85)
> I suppose that in the end it's a matter of communication. How do > a cyclist and I make our intentions known to each other? When I'm coming > up behind a cyclist, I honk my horn to let him know I'm going to pass. > Usually he will move to the right, or wave, or something, and then I pass. > That's communication. Occasionally, however, he flips me the finger. That's > not communication; and it hardly proves my superior communication skills/ > morality/intellect to hit him with my car :-) > Part of the idea behind the Heimlich maneuver is to make sure thet > EVERYONE knows what it is. One thing that Heimlch tried to do was to establish > a universal way to tell somebody that you are choking -- put your hand to > your throat. It would be great if some general ways to communicate > could be taught to drivers and cyclists. > With that in mind, there are probably a few signals already in > existance that are nearly impossible to interpret. Some thought > on this would probably help the problem. > > Mark Draughn > > p.s. Comments would be appreciated, flames will be endured. Great Idea! Let's have some suggestions. The network would be a great forum for suggesting a universal code of simple communication system between, not only, motorist and bicyclist, but between bicyclist and bicyclist (this is one of the reasons I'm opposed to the use of head phones by bicyclists). There already exists a code for right and left hand turns and for changing lanes. Probably one of the best forms of communication between the bicyclist and motorist is for the bicyclist to look behind him. As soon as this is done and the motorist sees this, he should be aware that the bicylist is about to make some sort of maneuver. In fact, the bicylist should be frequently looking behind because communication from the motorist cannot be made unless this is done. Possibly the system might go like this: The bicyclist initiates communication by looking behind and the motorist initiates communication by a short burst from his/her horn. At initiation by the bicyclist, the motorist would nod or something to indicate that he/her is ready to receive transmission (If this sounds alot like a meteor burst communication link, don't blame me. After all it is well-modeled by one.). After initiation by the motorist, the bicyclist should look around and nod or something to indicate a similar readiness to receive the message. After initiation some system of hand signals must be devised. I'm open to suggestions. A system like this undoubtedly already exists, but I am unaware of any. I'll ask around. Bill Powers
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/04/85)
> > First of all where did the idea come from that roads were intended for > automobiles and not for biclycles. Historically, roads were > originally intended for bicycles and autos were considered a nuisance. Sure they were. Any evidence for this, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? (Were the horses and wagons allowed on the road with the bicycles?) > Secondly, as a tax payer I pay for the maintanence and patrolling of > roads. With the taxes you pay which are built into the price of gasoline you pay for the maintenance and patrolling of roads. How much gasoline do you buy for your bycicle? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Sundown, yellow moon. I replay the past. I know every scene by heart; they all went by so fast." - Dylan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (06/06/85)
> > > > First of all where did the idea come from that roads were intended for > > automobiles and not for biclycles. Historically, roads were > > originally intended for bicycles and autos were considered a nuisance. > > Sure they were. Any evidence for this, or are we just supposed to > take your word for it? (Were the horses and wagons allowed on the road > with the bicycles?) > The League of American Wheelmen was established nearly 100 years ago as the umbrella organization for bicycling in the USA. One of the things it fought for very early on were good roads for cyclists. You may not be aware of it, but in the 1890's cycling was a national craze comparable to home computers today. > > Secondly, as a tax payer I pay for the maintanence and patrolling of > > roads. > > With the taxes you pay which are built into the price of gasoline > you pay for the maintenance and patrolling of roads. How much gasoline > do you buy for your bycicle? Most bicycling is done in cities and towns. Certainly nearly all of mine is. Taxes for the roads in my hometown are paid for by *property taxes*, not gasoline taxes, as they are in most incorporated areas. My tax bill doubled last year, and you bet, I demand my money's worth. > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (06/06/85)
In article <903@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> >> First of all where did the idea come from that roads were intended for >> automobiles and not for biclycles. Historically, roads were >> originally intended for bicycles and autos were considered a nuisance. > > Sure they were. Any evidence for this, or are we just supposed to >take your word for it? (Were the horses and wagons allowed on the road >with the bicycles?) Roads were originally built to transport goods and people, whether by foot, horse, sled, bus or bicycle.. Originally bicycles were meant for pleasure probably, but the use as serious transport was almost as quickly developed... Still one of the quickest ways from Point A to B.. The issue was are bicycles entitled to the road Mr sontag and not were they there first.. > >> Secondly, as a tax payer I pay for the maintanence and patrolling of >> roads. > > With the taxes you pay which are built into the price of gasoline >you pay for the maintenance and patrolling of roads. How much gasoline >do you buy for your bycicle? Do I understand that gas taxes pay the full capital and maintenance costs of roads, highways, bridges etc... In Ontario there are no toll roads or bridges, all freeways. Generally all revenues from gas taxes go into general revenues and not into a specific highway road fund... Cities that must maintain roads get no specific funds from Gas taxes, except indirectly from state/provincial government, unless your city has exceptional powers or a healthy license fee.... If you also believe in fair use fees, then the share for roads should go on the basis of damage, with trucks first cars in the middle then motorcycles followed by bikes.... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>
jdi@ucbvax.ARPA (John D. Irwin) (06/07/85)
Suggestion -- try not to use the finger. It will make you feel better. That is, until the angry, ignorant, abusive person in the 4,000 pound pickup truck decides he'd prefer you to be flat. Fortunately, I was able to acellerate to probably my highest speed ever and take a bike path where he could not follow. Nowadays I try to control myself. Self-preservation is more important than self-satisfaction. A couple days ago there was a man who got a parking ticket from a police officer riding a motorcycle. Ten minutes later, he sped up to the cop and ran him over, throwing him 50 feet onto the pavement. He then went over and starting stomping on him. The officer died. -- John (jdi@ucbvax)
gene@batman.UUCP (06/08/85)
Mark Draughn' original comment: > > I suppose that in the end it's a matter of communication. How do > > a cyclist and I make our intentions known to each other? When I'm coming > > up behind a cyclist, I honk my horn to let him know I'm going to pass. > > Usually he will move to the right, or wave, or something, and then I pass. > > That's communication. Occasionally, however, he flips me the finger. That's I get ticked off on a bike when I hear a horn blast. When in a car, I like to give two (very) short beeps rather than one long blast. That is what I would like to hear on a bike rather than a single "get out of my way, you stupid hippie" blast. It establishes the clear intent of the car driver to communicate rather than to run down at the slightest excuse. Gene Mutschler Burroughs Corp, Austin Research Center {various}!ut-sally!oakhill!cyb-eng!batman
blb@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Ben Branch ) (06/11/85)
Bicyclists who use rear-view mirrors attached to bike, helmet, or glasses (love 'em) don't look back.
keesan@bbnccv.UUCP (06/13/85)
In article <992@cbdkc1.UUCP> blb@dkc1.UUCP ( Ben Branch ) writes: >Bicyclists who use rear-view mirrors attached to bike, helmet, or >glasses (love 'em) don't look back. On the other hand, once you've mastered the technique of looking back without swerving, the motion of looking back over your shoulder provides a valuable visual cue to the driver behind you. By looking back rather than into a mirror, you're letting the driver know that you see him/her, which is a valuable piece of communication. -- Morris M. Keesan keesan@bbn-unix.ARPA {decvax,ihnp4,etc.}!bbncca!keesan
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (06/13/85)
> In article <992@cbdkc1.UUCP> blb@dkc1.UUCP ( Ben Branch ) writes: > >Bicyclists who use rear-view mirrors attached to bike, helmet, or > >glasses (love 'em) don't look back. > > On the other hand, once you've mastered the technique of looking back > without swerving, the motion of looking back over your shoulder provides > a valuable visual cue to the driver behind you. By looking back rather > than into a mirror, you're letting the driver know that you see him/her, > which is a valuable piece of communication. Amen. I use a mirror for casual checks and in preparation for maneuvers which will take me into the traffic lane, but when I am going to make my move, I look behind me as I prepare to signal my intentions. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)