jon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Gingerich) (06/05/85)
This is a reply to a question Mark Draughn brought up, "How should cyclists and drivers communicate?" First, I suspect 90-95% of all bicycle users are miserably irresponsible, lazy, or stupid. They are a physical threat and a political liability to the rest of us, and I have no wish to defend their antics. Secondly, I once was touring through the hills of western Pa. and heard about 4 hills back a coal truck approaching. I would guess such a truck may be close to 8 tons, and although short, have about 10 wheels and for some reason have lots of chains hanging on them. He rumbled through those hills, going back and forth through his gears, but when he got to me, he pulled his horn. I do not know if he was trying to be friendly or hostile, but he certainly did not tell me anything I did not know already. Usually, but not always, a cyclist is aware of overtaking traffic. Even a friendly honk can be startling or taken offensively. Therfore, unless there is an unusual situation, most cyclist would probably prefer you to wave. The most comprehensive and thoughtful discussion of the bicycle in traffic can be found in "Effective Cycling" by John Forester (sp?). and probably should be mandatory reading for anyone wishing to discuss this. He is a forceful proponent of assertive cycling. Essentially, his view is that a bicycle is a (usually) slow moving vehicle and has all the rights and resposibilities of such a vehicle. Thus it needs neither special priveledges nor special restrictions. I believe he would agree that cyclists and drivers need to communicate --- the same way drivers communicate among themselves, with turn signals and position on the road! There is no need for a special signal to indicate, "I am about to make a sudden right angle turn in front of you!" because it is illegal to do so. He would suggest that when you overtake a bicycle you should do it the same way you would a slow moving vehicle, say a tractor. If he is taking up the lane, you slow behind him, watch oncomming traffic, signal, change lanes, accelerate past, and then pull back in. If you have room to pass in the lane, you moderate your speed appropriately and pass. You would not use your horn on the tractor unless he is swerving back and forth or not staying to the right as any slow moving vehicle must, and the same would apply to bicycles. (Incidently, Forester's principals include staying to the right as far as saftey permits, but because visibility is of paramont importance in safety, - cyclist are struck in intersections not from behind - this is NOT all the way to the right. If there is not enough room for cars to pass safely, then the cyclist should assert his right to the lane by moving towards the middle rather than tempting cars to pass unsafely.) I hope this has been more enlightening than irritating.
powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (06/09/85)
> This is a reply to a question Mark Draughn brought up, "How should cyclists > and drivers communicate?" > The most comprehensive and thoughtful discussion of the bicycle in traffic > can be found in "Effective Cycling" by John Forester (sp?). and probably > should be mandatory reading for anyone wishing to discuss this. He is a > forceful proponent of assertive cycling. Essentially, his view is that a > bicycle is a (usually) slow moving vehicle and has all the rights and > resposibilities of such a vehicle. Thus it needs neither special priveledges > nor special restrictions. > > I believe he would agree that cyclists and drivers need to communicate --- > the same way drivers communicate among themselves, with turn signals and > position on the road! There is no need for a special signal to indicate, > "I am about to make a sudden right angle turn in front of you!" because it > is illegal to do so. He would suggest that when you overtake a bicycle > you should do it the same way you would a slow moving vehicle, say a tractor. > If he is taking up the lane, you slow behind him, watch oncomming traffic, > signal, change lanes, accelerate past, and then pull back in. If you have > room to pass in the lane, you moderate your speed appropriately and pass. > You would not use your horn on the tractor unless he is swerving back and forth > or not staying to the right as any slow moving vehicle must, and the same > would apply to bicycles. > (Incidently, Forester's principals include staying to the right as far as > saftey permits, but because visibility is of paramont importance in safety, > - cyclist are struck in intersections not from behind - this is NOT all the > way to the right. If there is not enough room for cars to pass safely, then > the cyclist should assert his right to the lane by moving towards the middle > rather than tempting cars to pass unsafely.) I totally agree with Forester, esp. since I discovered his attitude in the same manner that he did: by experience. However, it occurs to me that there is a need for a horn. If I wanted to pass that tractor, I would think that safety and courtesy would dictate that I inform the operator of the tractor. The best way to do that is with a horn before the manuever is attempted. I still think that a more or less universally adopted or advocated system of communication between the motorist and bicyclist is important. One of the major concerns that I hear from motorists is that they simply do not know how to react to bicycle traffic. At best they are overly careful and fearful; at worst they are hostile and frustrated with their presence on the road. A well advertised system of communication would have the two-fold effect of alleviating this problem while simultaneously making both the motorist and bicyclist aware of their mutual concerns. Just the exercise of political effort to implement such a system could have tremendous beneficial effects. Bill Powers