Drivers Think Bikers Are Less Than Human, Survey Says (vice.com) 636
Researchers have found an explanation for why many drivers act out toward cyclists: They are actually dehumanizing people who ride bikes, according to an April study by Australian researchers in the journal Transportation Research. From a report: And this dehumanization -- the belief that a group of people are less than human -- correlates to drivers' self-reported aggressive behavior. Since 2010, cyclist fatalities have increased by 25 percent in the US. A total of 777 bicyclists were killed in crashes with drivers in 2017, and 45,000 were injured from crashes in 2015. Data compiled by the League of American Bicyclists also suggests that, in some states, bicyclists are overrepresented in the number of traffic fatalities.
"The idea is that if you don't see a group of people as fully human, then you're more likely to be aggressive toward them," said Narelle Haworth, a professor and director of the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety at Queensland University of Technology, one of the authors of the study. The researchers asked 442 Australians, including those who identified as cyclists, to rank the average cyclist on a scale from ape to human. This ape-to-human diagram has been used in other studies, like this one from 2015, looking at the dehumanization of marginalized groups, such as Muslims and black people.
"The idea is that if you don't see a group of people as fully human, then you're more likely to be aggressive toward them," said Narelle Haworth, a professor and director of the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety at Queensland University of Technology, one of the authors of the study. The researchers asked 442 Australians, including those who identified as cyclists, to rank the average cyclist on a scale from ape to human. This ape-to-human diagram has been used in other studies, like this one from 2015, looking at the dehumanization of marginalized groups, such as Muslims and black people.
Humans are good at this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You wouldn't throw a soda can or shout profanity at your neighbor
Speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you were suggesting were true, being in a big car or SUV should have the same (or an even larger effect) on disposition towards pedestrians. However, I don't believe any research bears this out. People who aren't cyclists (and maybe even s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They block traffic. They run stop signs and red lights. They ride on sidewalks. They duck from the roads onto sidewalks and then ride across in pedestrian crosswalks. They don't stop for pedestrians (ever).
Lots of reasons to hate cyclists. Far far too many of them are assholes.
Re:Humans are good at this... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a good reason to hate assholes. Not all cyclists are assholes. You only probably notice the ones that are.
Kinda like motorists. Most motorists aren't assholes, but then you see that one guy weaving around in traffic and you notice him.
Re:Humans are good at this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I, as a pedestrian, have several times been almost ran over by a car. On the bloody sidewalk. Cyclists are okayish in comparison. Especially those who have decent bikes and wear a helmet.
Re:Humans are good at this... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about dehumanizing, but I do expect the more fragile element in traffic to yield, as I do when faced with an 18-wheeler doing whatever the hell it wants.
In some cases the law may be on their side, but I'm not sure how much solace that offers other than having something to put on your tombstone. "Here lies Joe Biker, he had the right of way."
Re:Humans are good at this... (Score:4, Insightful)
The lorry isn't less-fragile; it's nigh-on-impossible to stop. Freight trains don't yield to cars because they can come to a stop about a mile after where you're sitting on the track, and they see you from a pretty good distance and apply the brakes there.
Regulations around how those things drive, how fast they go, how much space they leave ahead of them, and so forth govern their movement on the roads. They're expected to yield.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Here lies Joe Biker, he had the right of way."
More like "Here lies Joe Biker, his propensity for ignoring stop signs finally caught up with him."
It might be the helmet (Score:2)
... plus the shiny synthetic clothes that make them look like large insects. A person in regular clothes and without the helmet on a cheap bicycle does look more vulnerable. I'm always skeptical about these kind of studies though.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MR2 driver here, but we were talking about what's in SUV driver's brains, not what other people do.
.
Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:5, Interesting)
As a bicyclist, I agree that many bike riders are their own worst enemies, and they make the rest of us look bad.
I think a lot more states should look at legalizing the "Idaho stop." In Idaho, it's legal for cyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign and a stop sign as a yield sign. This has not been shown to increase accidents.
We should also be looking at building more off-road bike paths to keep cyclists and cars away from each other.
Re:Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The stop = yield must only apply to 4-way or all-way stops, right? Otherwise how would the car on the main road know a bike is going to blow through the stop sign?
Re: (Score:2)
I commute by bike every day. I blow stops when there's no traffic coming. I don't put myself in front of moving vehicles and trust they'll stop for me. There's only so much we can do to protect idiots.
Vehicle detection failure (Score:2)
As a driver I generally have to expect that cyclists will run red lights and stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, etc.
It's hard not to run red lights when the induction loop buried in the road fails to detect a bicycle stopped directly over it, and the intersection lacks a pedestrian signal (or even a marked crosswalk in the first place). At some intersections, not even a bicycle and a motorcycle put together will keep a non-primary approach from staying red for upwards of 8 minutes. Some (but not all) U.S. states have a law allowing cyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign after waiting 2 minutes.
Re:Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
I too live in Portland - the amount of car drivers that totally ignore laws is far higher than cyclists that do. I've seen cars glide through stop lights, run stop lights (mostly as intersection late comers), not indicate when changing lanes.
Who do you think does more damage when they fail to obey traffic laws - cars or bikes?
Also while we're at it - "many cyclists that traffic laws don't apply to them annoying" - was actually studied - in portland no less: https://bikeportland.org/2013/... [bikeportland.org]
94% of all cyclists wait at red lights - I don't think that number is as high for motorists just in my observations.
Re:Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can pretty much guarantee that more than 94% of cars wait at a red light. Even if you limit it to "the first car at the light", since the second car can't go unless the first one does. Unless you are including legal right-on-red in that statistic, which is a given.
Unless you live in some crazy lawless place, where people just randomly blow through lights and there are no police to give them tickets?
Probably bikes worse, alsot obey figure too high (Score:2)
Who do you think does more damage when they fail to obey traffic laws - cars or bikes?
Bikes, because they piss off drivers in every car that sees them float through obstacles when the driver feels constrained.
Making a lot of drivers angry is a much worse consequence as they can act more aggro later and possibly injure someone.
I say this as someone who bikes a lot. Take care to not make drivers think you are just another asshole biker.
94% of all cyclists wait at red lights
I don't know where the hell you l
Re: (Score:2)
94% of all cyclists wait at red lights - I don't think that number is as high for motorists just in my observations.
More than 6 cars out of every 100 brazenly drive through red lights at any point in the cycle? Really? I'd love to see a cite on that one (or anything remotely close).
But back to cyclists: your link specifically says that (1) the study author was actually surprised to find the compliance rate in downtown Portland was so high, perhaps because (2) the compliance rate in cities other than Portland is drastically lower (the article mentions some special traffic lights along one particular section of downtown
Re:Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been and continue to be on both sides of this one. I drive very defensively by nature, and I certainly try to make things safer for cyclists around me. I also ride my bike frequently, and I realize that the laws and rules of the road apply to me when I'm on my bike, too.
In my experience, a lot of drivers don't pay as much attention to anything else on the road (bicycles, pedestrians, etc.) than they pay to something the size of a car/SUV.
Also, in my experience, casual bike riders are more likely to ride dangerously than those that are dedicated sport cyclists. It seems to be that the more you're out on the road on a bike, the more you realize the dangers, and the more you'll do everything you can (like obeying laws and rules) to make yourself safer.
Re: (Score:2)
casual bike riders are more likely to ride dangerously than those that are dedicated sport cyclists.
I mostly agree except with this part, only because dedicated sport cyclists are often found on roads that bikes really should not be on - heavily traffic roads with basically no shoulders. They can often create a lot of danger and very irate drivers. This is probably a lot more of a problem in mountain areas than in more open places.
Re: (Score:3)
I mostly agree except with this part, only because dedicated sport cyclists are often found on roads that bikes really should not be on - heavily traffic roads with basically no shoulders.
That gets a little tricky, legally, depending on the location. Where I am in NY State, for example, a bicycle rider has the legal right to be on any public road, unless it is specifically posted and prohibited on that road (for example, you can't ride your bicycle over the Throgs Neck or Whitestone bridges, because it is posted and prohibited there). According to statute, "a person riding a bicycle has all of the rights and duties of a driver of a vehicle" (Source: N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 159; 1231) and
Re: (Score:3)
I bike commute and I make myself safer by minimizing the amount of time I spend in situations where I am not safe. If this involves not obeying the laws, so be it. Sitting at a red light when there are no crossing cars visible just increases your exposure to someone hitting you from behind. Traffic laws in this situation are about control not safety. How long do you sit at the guard rails waiting for a train to go by when there is no train?
Re: (Score:2)
You can also expect cyclists to take their hobby to the worst possible roads to ride on: blind corners, no shoulder, high traffic. There's a particular commuter road in Multnomah county that is exceptionally dangerous, but you'll still find cyclists on it, likely believing that 'share the road' entitles them to create a hazardous situation for everyone just so they can have a hobby.
Re: (Score:3)
Many cyclists seem to feel the same about drivers in automobiles. As an automobile driver, I personally don't hate cyclists, but I do find the attitude of many cyclists that traffic laws don't apply to them annoying. As a driver I generally have to expect that cyclists will run red lights and stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, etc. While I try to be courteous and careful around bicycles, especially since I live in the Portland, OR area, which is pretty bicycle friendly, I find that a lot of cyclists don't return the courtesy.
Traffic laws are not adapted to bicycle. Except in Idaho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If I get to the intersection first, why should the bicycle be forced to perform a full stop? A slow down, checking that no one else is crossing, is more than enough. Often keeping the same pace is perfectly safe.
Re: (Score:2)
As a pedestrian, I personally don't hate cyclists, but I do find the attitude of many cyclists that traffic laws don't apply to them annoying. As a pedestrian I generally have to expect that cyclists will run red lights and stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, etc.
Fixed that for my city.
Re:Because the feeling is mutual? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess you're one of the good ones. Thank you for being a good cyclist. Unfortunately, I agree totally with the general attitude that bikers on the roads are usually a-holes. My experience with bike riders is from the cyclist point of view also. After a while I thought I would push myself. I road the Seattle to Portland on the 2 day track with my cousin. All I can say is if I didn't have him along, it would have sucked. I can't tell you how many people had crappy attitudes to me and other cycli
Re: (Score:2)
Every single (not most... every) motorist breaks the law every single (not most... every) day.
Re: (Score:2)
Brand of cars? (Score:2)
* BMW -- most likely
* Audi
* Lexis
* Mercedes
Some roads have lanes marked HOV which are expressly reserved for the exclusive use of high occupancy vehicles and for BMW drivers who shouldn't be inconvenienced.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the Eastern/Central Massachusetts area I'd bet it's a couple of vehicles: pickup trucks, anything by Nissan. Or older Crown Victorias. Basically, any townie vehicle.
me me me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:me me me (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it seems like people are just becoming increasingly about 'me' and 'them'.
To me it seems like people have ALWAYS been about 'me' and 'them'.
There was never a golden age of selfless altruism.
Re:me me me (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is it? (Score:4, Funny)
Car changes people. (Score:2)
They all turn into these monsters once they get into the car, honking, impatient, calling everyone else idiots and morons, ...
No, drivers don't see cyclists alone as less than human. They see everyone else as less th
Been a cyclist for 40+ years (Score:5, Informative)
and that's not really the case at all. Cyclist all too often don't respect the dangerous nature of riding on the roads while drivers underestimate it.
And while I do see drivers being irrational about cyclists, I also feel that many cyclists are just as irrational about the realities of "sharing the road" as those drivers.
I've literally watched cyclist intentionally ride into harms way just so that they can express their righteous indignation. That's not "sharing the road", it's just being an asshole.
Another possible explanation (Score:2)
Whinging cyclist excuse number one: There aren't enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And all of that still doesn't explain why some drivers feel the need to intentionally drive on the bike lane or shoulder when they see a cyclist, or intentionally opening the door when they see a cyclist approaching.
I have a lot of miles under my belt in a lot of different parts of the country, and have never seen either of those scenarios even once. Assuming you actually have, are you sure it was truly out of the blue and not a later stage of an ongoing altercation between a driver and a cyclist?
More bad science masquerading as legitimate... (Score:2)
re: "... rank the average cyclist on a scale from ape to human. This ape-to-human diagram has been used in other studies, like this one from 2015, looking at the dehumanization of marginalized groups..."
All humans are already, equally, apes, as members of the Hominoidea superfamily.
Reverse: Bikers think drivers are assholes ... (Score:2)
... for thinking they own the road WHEN drivers are unable/unwilling to share it.
Also: Pedestrians think bikers are assholes when they use the sidewalk when there is no road to use. (Freeway / Expressway)
And: Bikers thinks pedestrians are assholes who block the bike lane. [youtu.be]
Why do you think there is this slogan? "You own a car not the road."
We can make stupid generalizations *both* ways. In reality we have a spectrum:
* There are good drivers
* There are bad drivers
* There are good bikers
* There are bad bikers
*
Re: (Score:2)
There are good bikers
Yeah. The dead ones.
Couldn't resist the obvious joke.
So, that's the only explanation? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the problem is that drivers are monsters, and none of the problem are bicyclists who pay no heed to traffic regulations? I work in Manhattan, and bicyclists all around me appear to be actively trying to kill themselves.
While that's going on, the same bicyclists who will take a cleat to your door for any perceived breach of their right-of-way will pay no heed whatsoever to pedestrians who are entitled to the right-of-way from *them*.
I'm also a motorcyclist and know first-hand that many car drivers are unaware if not actively targeting the two-wheeled. I'm not dismissing that - but dismissing all fault of bicyclists is just dishonest.
Bicycles and Motorcycles (Score:3)
Less nefarious reason (or more?) (Score:2)
Single file! (Score:2, Insightful)
You fucking Lance Armstrong wannabe's. Single file!
Even though you have a right to use the roads does not give you the right to obstruct normal traffic.
Remember the roads were built for cars and paid for by the cars. Have some respect and appreciate your freedom.
Bicyclists don't want to ride out of the traffic lane, because their Italian racing tires will get punctured by the gravel along the side of the road.
If I was a cop I'd site you for obstructing traffic and using an unsafe vehicle on the road. Sew-up
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, in many jurisdictions a bicycle is considered a vehicle and is entitled to the use of the whole lane just as any other vehicle is. Also in much of the world the roads existed long before the Automobile was even invented. Roads were built for people and their beasts of burden. Hell, in South America cultures built extensive roads and they didn't even use wheeled carts at the time.
Re:Single file! (Score:5, Informative)
You fucking Lance Armstrong wannabe's. Single file!
Bikes in my state are permitted to ride two abreast.
Even though you have a right to use the roads does not give you the right to obstruct normal traffic.
Bicycles are obstructing traffic, they ARE traffic. They are no different than a farming tractor in terms of being slow and in your way.
Remember the roads were built for cars and paid for by the cars. Have some respect and appreciate your freedom.
Your statement is false [roadsweren...orcars.com].
Also, most bicyclists also drive cars. They paid for the roads, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bicycles are obstructing traffic, they ARE traffic. They are no different than a farming tractor in terms of being slow and in your way.
This is the sense of entitlement that makes bicyclists loathsome. You are perfectly willing to justify slowing down all the traffic behind you and blocking it.
Inhuman? (Score:3)
The roads were built for cars. If there isn't a dedicated and partitioned off bike lane and the speed limit is >30 MPH, it stands to reason this is not a place for bicyclists because they will impede traffic. If someone drove an Excursion or Tahoe powered by a 40 HP air-cooled VW Beetle motor on the freeway you would have the same opinion -- they don't belong on that road and the vehicle is ill-suited for the purpose to the point of inconveniencing the populous.
The issue at the end of the day is civic dishonesty. We all know bicycles don't belong on primary roadways and arteries (those with speeds > 30 MPH). But we want to encourage bicycling for exercise, emissions reduction, and other civic positives -- even ignoring the cyclist zealotry and general insanity. It's vanilla cognitive dissonance because reality and what we wish we could be are in conflict.
IMHO (Score:2)
Based on my experience, I've observed the following in regard to bikers:
1. People don't handle things that are out of the ordinary very well, especially when in a hurry or doing other things. This applies to both bicycles and motorcycles. I can go weeks without seeing either on a road. Thus people just don't "see" them.
2. Where I live there are no bike lanes and often no sidewalks. Roads were designed a long, long time ago and they are barely safe for cars, let alone bicycles. There are basically no safe pl
Human implies society (Score:2)
A society implies manners and rules of behavior. Things like taking turns and obeying traffic signs and signals. This is where cyclists fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bikers are not human. They think they're invincible
And many think the traffic laws don't apply to them. I've seen bicyclists do some crazy, dangerous shit, like riding between traffic (down the white line), crossing intersections through a red light w/o even stopping, and riding in the street *against* traffic.
On the other hand, vehicle drivers sometimes don't pay enough attention. A long time ago, I ended up on the hood of a car that was turning *after* the driver and I actually looked at each other while I was riding up. My bike and I were okay; he
Re: (Score:3)
And many think the traffic laws don't apply to them.
Sure, and driving around Long Island and the NYC metro area, I see plenty of car drivers who think the same.
I've seen bicyclists do some crazy, dangerous shit, like riding between traffic (down the white line), crossing intersections through a red light w/o even stopping, and riding in the street *against* traffic.
Riding against traffic is a peeve of mine, even as a cyclist. Encountered one just this morning, though from his gear and riding position, I guessed he was a noob. That doesn't take much to correct; a kind word of instruction should fix that. The other things, I could say I see plenty of drivers do stupid shit, too: One, today, jumped into my lane right in front of me - in a heavily loaded van wi
Re:Gods (Score:5, Insightful)
No. SUV drivers think they're invincible in their steel mastodons.
Nice generalization. I drive an SUV and always try to give bicyclists & pedestrians wide berth whenever I'm driving by them whenever it is safe to do so. If it is unsafe (opposing traffic), I slow down. You never know when someone is going to trip or wipe out, and I like to have the most opportunity to react in a way that does not cause harm.
Re:Well, you're still an idiot for buying a SUV. (Score:4, Insightful)
They literally have the disadvantages of all the car classes.
I drive a car 95% of the time, so I'm not an SUV person myself. But I have one that I use to take my dogs to the vet, or move something that doesn't require a pickup. But they do have the advantage of a better view. Especially when a Canyonaro sized vehicle pulls up beside me on my left side at an intersection. I can fit 8 people in the one I have. Other than a station wagon, I don't know of any cars that can do that. There's a hell of a lot more space to carry stuff. In the winter, I've never needed to shovel my SUV out. I just put it in gear and go. I can't say that for my car though. So no, cars do not have all of the advantages.
And no, the are not more safe!
I would guess it depends on the model and what you are in a crash with. I know that years ago, larger cars were safer when actually in a crash. However smaller cars are less likely to actually get in a crash. So it depends on how you define it.
Force is mass times acceleration. And your SUV weighs twice or thrice that of any sane car.
I'm assuming you are not in the US as most SUV's don't weight twice what a car does unless you look for extremes. In the US the average compact car weight 2900 lbs. a midsize car is 3500 lbs and a large car is 4400 lbs. A small truck or SUV weighs 3500 lbs. midsize SUV is 4300 lbs. and a large SUV is 5400 lbs. Now if you compare something stupid like a H1 at 8000lbs. to a Chevy spark that weighs in at 2300 lbs. sure. But both are not something that I typically see often in the US, and even rarer to see on the same road. Even a Hummer H2 at 6600 lbs. isn't something that is very common. But if I was going to be in a wreck between an H2 and a Spark, I'd much prefer to be in the H2.
On top of that, its high center of gravity makes it want to topple like a Reliant Robin all the time.
No, it doesn't. A 3 wheeled Robin could topple going 5 mph if you turned too hard. No SUV that I know of can do that. They all have had stability control for some time now. So even people that don't understand the higher center of gravity are unlikely to roll one.
Any small car has better crash safety.
Maybe in Bizarro world they do. Why don't you go find a Yugo and I'll rent an H1. We'll hit each other head on at 20 mph. Sound good? I'm sure you'll be able to jump out and laugh at my mangled corpse.
And you paid a large amount of money for a slow car that drives like shit, doesn't fit into any parking spot, *can't go offroad* (no, it can't!),
I haven't purchased a new car since the mid 80's, so I don't spend a lot on any vehicle. Most fit just fine in parking spaces. And, yes, they can go off road. Well, maybe some of the smaller ones can't. But in my youth I drove a Cadillac on a snow mobile trail to go fishing. So I might not be the best person to ask.
isn't a truck that can carry stuff,
Mine shares the same frame as the pickup truck from its manufacturer. So it is, in fact, a truck. I've used it to haul lumber, 4X8 foot sheets of plywood, etc. I can't go to the quarry to pick up a tone of gravel with it though.
kills pedestrians,
So do cars, poor diet choices, smoking, and taking selfies.
guzzles gas like a bum guzzles booze,
Depends on the model. many get 30 to 40 mpg on the highway. If you look "a href="https://www.cars.com/articles/best-and-worst-gas-mileage-2018-1420698621218/">here, you will find that the outside of the extremes, they are not as different as you would think. For some reason, minivans are a lot worse than I would have thought.
and on top of that, looks shit too!
Finally something we agree on. I always thought of SUVs as "manly" minivans and never really saw the point. But my wife refused to drive a minivan.
Re:Gods (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you have to think through the consequences. One person who believes another is inhuman is much more of an issue when the person controls a large lump of metal, capable of accelerating and moving very fast, than when the person controls a bike.
It's a similar issue with having a psycopath with a machine gun or a supersoaker. Both make be equally deluded, but one is more or a problem than the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it, bicycles just are not and can not drive as fast and keep with the flow of general traffic on roads that were, especially in the US, built primarily for CARS.
I have to admit I get very frustrated at someone ahead of me going too slow, or below the limit. That's just for cars ahead of me....and when it is a bicycle or a group of them, where you cannot safely pass, it naturally gets most
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Solution approach: God-like bicycles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, I've seen some insane behavior and wonder why more people haven't been killed on bikes.
Now yes, there are people on bicycles that do obey all the laws and ride safely. However, considering you are in an exposed mode of transportation with no crumple zone (other that your head), going up against steal many multitudes larger than your mass; you'd think everyone on a bike would exercise a bit more caution when riding.
Re:Solution approach: God-like bicycles? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is just blaming the victim. People can quite happily do all of those things on bikes and survive just fine. It's just cars that cause the difficulties.
Some of them (riding between cars at stop lights) incidentally are not crazy. On a bike you are far safer riding between cars, and waiting at the front at traffic lights. This is good, defensive cycling.
Re:Solution approach: God-like bicycles? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like ride between cars at stop lights,
Huh? Why is that crazy? Are you able to get to your car in a parking lot or do you also think "whoa all these completely stationary vehicles may suddenly kill me"!
blow through stop lights and signs, jump from the curb to the street and back to get around stuff; and that is just all the stuff I've seen this week alone
Your anecdotes have been noted. If you want to play the anecdote game however cars will lose. The reality is everyone does stupid crazy shit all the time, and no it's not representative of the population.
However, considering you are in an exposed mode of transportation with no crumple zone (other that your head), going up against steal many multitudes larger than your mass; you'd think everyone on a bike would exercise a bit more caution when riding.
And that's what's wrong with the your attitude. "I have steel and mass so you be careful". How kind you are. Such empathy. In the mean time when I am driving down the road the thought process is more like considering they are in an exposed mode of transportation with no crumple zone, going up against steal many multitudes larger than their mass; I exercise a bit of caution so as to not kill a fellow human who may act unpredictably.
Re: (Score:3)
Bicyclists doing crazy things does not negate car drivers aggressively menacing bicyclists. Generally, the bicyclist doesn't do any harm to drivers with their stunts, while drivers harm cyclists all the time. If someone engages in self-harm, that does not justify others harming them also.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not bicyclists harming drivers that's a problem. It's bicyclists harming themselves. I lived in a city with very well behaved cyclists. If another cyclist saw you doing something stupid, they'd probably yell at you to knock it off. There were brochures from the local cycling groups in bike shops pointing out traffic laws that cyclists were bound by.
I moved to a city with out of control cyclists, and, not coincidentally, one of the highest bike accident rates in the country. Not just anecdotes, cyclist
You're absolutely incorrect. (Score:5, Interesting)
Drivers don't come anywhere close to paying for the roads. In most US jurisdictions, gas tax, registration fees, etc pay for less than half of road construction and maintenance costs. The rest is borne by everyone via other taxes. And since road wear scales as the fourth power of axle weight, cyclists' use of the road causes essentially zero road maintenance costs. So the cyclists are paying far more than their share of road costs and are heavily subsidizing drivers.
In many other countries, cyclists and cars share the roads just fine, with auto-bike accident rates per cyclist mile which are orders of magnitude lower than the tragic accident rates in the US. Very little of this is due to cyclist behaviors; almost all of it is because in those nations drivers know cycling is a normal mode of transport and they need to treat cyclists as fellow human beings.
The speed mismatch between a 20mph cyclist and a sidewalk 3mph pedestrian is unworkable, because sidewalks have not been designed with directional lanes, buffer zones, and passing in mind. In many jurisdictions it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk. Sidewalks, not having been designed for tires, are also inconvenient riding surfaces unless you're going quite slowly. (Did you know the reason we started paving roads was at the behest of cyclists, decades before cars became popular?)
Passing a cyclist may slow a driver's trip by a few seconds. The same is true for any slower-moving vehicle (tractors on rural roads, even horse-drawn vehicles in Amish country &c), all of which, like cyclists, have the same right to any non-freeway road as auto drivers do. People can cope with that just fine, if they don't have ignorant and arrogant attitudes.
Re:Gods (Score:5, Informative)
>"I know from riding a motorcycle, which CAN keep up with speeds on regular roads.....automobile motorists often don't actually "see" you. Thankfully, you can have a fair loud motor/exhaust that helps them notice you are on the road with them.."
That is a fallacy. 20+ year motorcycle driver here. Loudness doesn't help. Noise mostly goes backwards, where few accidents originate. And drivers can't tell where noise is coming from anyway, especially with modern, sound-proofed cars and people listening to music. Loud mufflers/exhausts on motorcycles (or cars) are not only illegal, they are extremely annoying to the hundreds or thousands of people subjected to a single such violator's trip, every day.
I love to point people to one of my favorite South Park episodes on this topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://vimeo.com/15758959 [vimeo.com]
However, visibility does help- a lot. This is why on any new motorcycle, I immediately add additional running lights, brake lights, reflectors, etc, and as widely separated as possible. This also helps on a bicycle (which I also ride daily). Once I added bright front and tail lights on my bicycle, it made a HUGE difference in the way people reacted to me- I went from being invisible to being seen.
Of course, NOTHING is as important as defensive driving and proper safety equipment.
Re:Gods (Score:4, Informative)
If you are upset by someone slowing you down, you are irremediably unfit to use any vehicle. Even a bicycle or kick scooter. You are simply what is called an aggressive driver. Yes, there are people behaving aggressively on kick scooters go figure. It is the pedestrians they molest.
And as a matter of fact, bikes and car DO coexist well. At the conditions that users of the road are educated enough. All of them. And indeed i have witnessed radically different ambiances biking in four different places. Belgium with Brussels, Flanders and Walloonia, and Texas with Austin. Austin and Brussels are ok, Flanders is nice and motorists there are used to pay attention to cyclists. And nearby Walloonia is dangerous with motorists driving like savages.
Where people are aware they have to pay attention to the presence of cyclists it goes fairly well. From a biker point of view there are things which help, of course. Respecting traffic laws goes without saying. Wearing those security yellow vests to be well visible, wearing lights when in the dark. Avoid sudden and unpredictable moves. And for chrissake do not bike on the sidewalks, that is aggressive towards pedestrians ! And as a general rule try to be courteous to other people.
Another problem is the image of the bicycle as "not really a vehicle". It it is a problem posed by both motorists and cyclists. In some less civilized places of the world motorists see them as illegitimate vehicles. And pretty much everywhere else it makes casual cyclists behave irresponsibly, like they were not really driving a vehicle with the responsibilities that entails.
Bike associations can do little about this. Because casual bikers do not join bike associations. That is stuff that should be addressed at school IMHO. Like when i was little we would have formations given by the police on how to behave safely on the streets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it should be the other way around...bicycles on the roads are the "new c
Re:Gods (Score:5, Insightful)
Bicycles are not "new comers". There have been bicycles riding on the roads long before cars were invented. Cars are really the newcomers here. But that's not a useful argument anyway.
What is useful is that bicyclists are legal road users and everyone driving a motor vehicle has a responsibility to pay attention to what they are doing and avoid the slower-moving legal road users.
Mixing bicycles with pedestrians is an even worse idea. At the speeds many cyclists can maintain, especially on road bikes (notice they are called "road bikes", I wonder why the term?), the consequences of a bike vs pedestrian accident can be nearly as bad as a car vs cyclist.
Your fallacy here is that the roads are not "primarily" for motorized vehicles. They are "primarily" for all legal vehicles. Just because one type of vehicle is a majority user doesn't give that type of vehicle the right to monopolize the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but you can't claim bicycles are the newcomers here.
Some roads do have legal minimums. Those are called highways (or freeways or whatever). Those have posted signs restricting certain vehicles (bicycles, horses, etc).
Otherwise if a road has no posted vehicular restrictions it should be assumed that all legal road users might be there. Therefore all legal road users, especially those in the most risky to operate vehicles (ie motor vehicles) should be paying attention for the slower road users. It's
Re:Gods (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, let's face it...our modern roads are built for and paid for by the motorized vehicle operators.
Sorry to deflate your self righteous indignation but, no, roads are not built for and paid by motorized vehicle owners. This myth comes from thinking that gasoline taxes pay for road construction and repair but that is less than half these days, with the majority being paid by property taxes. And that's just local streets. For highways, those are mainly financed by the federal government out of general taxation: https://uspirg.org/reports/usp... [uspirg.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the law putting them in jail if they drive too recklessly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look up the concept of an "Idaho Stop". In many cases it is safer for a cyclist to only slow down at stop signs (but yield right of way when would be considered typical in a car). The cyclist uses less energy to get back to speed, and the line of cars waiting to get through the top sign has to wait LESS time.
Of course this doesn't apply to cyclists who recklessly blow through stop signs - those guys are on their own.
But you can't pin this on cyclists. How many motorists break laws every day? I can guara
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same thing for cars. Fuck red lights, who needs them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Timed lights from the 50's, and no traffic because its an industrial area in the evening? Yeah, sometimes discretion is needed and not just mindless obedience.
Re: (Score:3)
Well duh. I don't stop at red lights in the middle of nowhere either. But that's not the same thing as never stopping at stop signs or red lights just because you're on a bike and it's hard to get moving again.
Re: (Score:3)
Cars have lower visibility and more of an ability to cause damage. Nah, it's just about a Yank skank sense of "muh fair playyyz."
If you hold up traffic then people think you're an asshole. They're correct. Holding up traffic while riding a bicycle gets you the same response as holding up traffic while driving a car, but you seem to think that it's just because you're on a bicycle.
If you want to share the road, then fine - by all means **share** the road. BUt you're not sharing the road when you hold up traffic, you're hogging the road. And when someone grabs the sahred resource for themselves leaving others with less of that resourc
Re:Gods (Score:4, Insightful)
It affects me because they aren't any more perfect than anyone else and I've actually witnessed an auto cyclist accident caused by it. The cyclist blew the red, missed seeing an oncoming vehicle, and got hit by said vehicle that saw them too late. Thankfully, no serious harm was done, but it could easily have gone the other way and I see articles about it happening about weekly in my area. If a car has a green light they have a reasonable expectation that the way will be clear. They SHOULD still be looking, but everyone misses things they don't expect to see once in a while. And someone running a red light is something that shouldn't be happening. I don't care if you are a car, cycle, skateboard, or pedestrian. The red light DOES apply to you. Creating an unsafe situation simply because you don't want to be bothered to stop is a dick move. The only exception to this should be when there is an event that has police controlling the intersection. Then drivers expect to be directed by the officers in a safe manner and it's obvious that something different is happening, so they are more aware of possible issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Staying in the bike lane is fine provided 1. the road even has a bike lane, 2. the bike lane isn't close enough to on-street parking that a cyclist runs the risk of being doored, 3. the cyclist isn't within a block per through lane of a right* turn across oncoming traffic, and 4. traffic signals are purely timed or the bike lane has a sensor connected to the signal controller. For roads without a bike lane, I have treated the right* half of the rightmost* through lane as if it were a bike lane.
* Assumes dri
Re: (Score:2)
Just like "... in mice", this *always* has to be added!
Not in this case, since the research was done in Australia.
Nope, 442 Australians (Score:2)
The summary quotes "an April study by Australian researchers". The article mentions "Queensland University of Technology", and I don't think Queensland is next to Bronxland.
Re:Ugh more horesshit from Vice (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's a crappy story about poor science, and it's lowering my estimation of Vice editors even further. They're getting into monkey territory.
Were you intentionally trying to prove their point there?
If so, bravo.
You don't know what the rules of the road are. (Score:2, Informative)
For example, you probably think the cyclist has to use the bike lane. Wrong. You probably think that cyclists have to stay far over in the inside lane. Wrong. You probably think that they should not ride two abreast. Wrong. You probably think that the roads are paid from your car tax. Wrong. You probably think that you can overtake whilst in the same lane, in the face of oncoming traffic that blocks moving over to the other lane. Wrong. You probably think that cyclists are worse at obeying the rules than dr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a biker. Ride 2 Harleys, no bicycles.
At the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely think the attitude that bikes are a luxury or recreational form of transportation is the issue. I don't know about Australia, but in the US bicycles have been considered toys for decades now, we don't really take them very seriously as a mode of transport.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the obligatory video [youtube.com].