The psychology of why cyclists enrage car drivers

Chalo and John, with all respect,
I went back and re-read your posts to understand. I didn't mean to sink this thread. Many would appreciate if any answers really exist.

Please tell me, Chalo, are you saying that people who are not in possession of potentially dangerous objects, such as nuclear reactors, are not responsible for them, or are not responsible for being part of a solution? I have feelings about three mile island, though I don't possess the same, with all respect to you, my feeling about that issue weighs heavily into my estimation of a probable outcome.

And John, is there a better, less confrontational way to gain acknowledgment, to get the respect of other operators? Knowing destructive force is involved whenever two machines collide, and knowing confrontation requires the confronted to "submit", isn't there any other way to gain a fair amount of acknowledgment, to neutralize the confrontation?

Knowing both of you have powerful spirits, can you both be right? And if so, could I, recounting stumble-bum experience, also have something to impart?

Once again, I got 2 cents cred, 35+ yrs experience w/ electric cars, 5+ with electric bikes, 55+ with bikes, 60+ with food, 50+ with guns, yet, barely 1 yr understanding you two, and you're both part right, however this discussion is far from over. This chapter is barely organized. The issue is complicated, don't you agree? Is there possibly less to argue about and more to discuss, and if not with me, how about all the rest, hoping to contribute?

HAROX said:

Please tell me, Chalo, are you saying that people who are not in possession of potentially dangerous objects, such as nuclear reactors, are not responsible for them, or are not responsible for being part of a solution?

Click to expand...

I'm saying the burdens of prevention and mitigation lie solely with those who impose risks and harms, most especially when they choose their actions without the consent of those who are affected.

If I were asked by an average motorist whether it was OK with me if they drive, I'd say no. It is not my job to mop up their excrement, which is what holding cyclists to motorist rules amounts to. Motorists brought the turd to the party; motorists can clean it up.

The cyclist's job is to protect himself and to prevent and mitigate the harms a cyclist can do, which are of a very different nature and scale than what a motorist imposes on the rest of us. Suggesting that cyclists are somehow accountable for the bad behavior and damage done by motorists (as John in CR and kent have done) is like me accusing you of being at fault in the Three Mile Island incident, because you living your life encouraged those plant operators to be negligent and sloppy. It's not only fallacious, it's actively offensive in shifting the blame for harm from the perpetrator to the aggrieved party.

HAROX said:

Please tell me, Chalo, are you saying that people who are not in possession of potentially dangerous objects, such as nuclear reactors, are not responsible for them, or are not responsible for being part of a solution?

Click to expand...

Let me choose to rephrase and answer myself. People not possessing potentially dangerous objects, aren't responsible TO them, yet they respond to outcome (solution or lack of) all the same.

Stimulation causes the imposed upon, to ultimately engage the imposer. Whats born is outcome.

Isn't the nature you speak of, or the essence, always sensed as stimulation? If so it be physical and /or psychic. Anger is psycho-based. The wall at the indy 500 is physical.

I believe the answer is a sort of bridging, where parallel needs are addressed, knowing if one is a turd, all are the same on both ends of the sewer.
I say this because (some) belief is, I am but the "troll", and so jumping out into the path may force another to make it to the other side, to bridge the needs with other turds I see. I've seen some turds too just like you have.

Why can't we all just follow the overly complicated rules?

YMMV when in jurisdictions outside NYC.

Drivers cause 80% of collisions with bicycles.
I'm of the opinion that driving a car just makes people stupid.

-insert-Drivers should be treated as if DUI when using a cell phone while driving.
suspended licenses/heavy fines etc.

Being aware of your surroundings when 'sharing the road' ( I simply HATE that meme- tends to drive my rage) is an absolute.
Understanding why other drivers might be offended by your presence while bicycling is meaningless. The same drivers are offended by your presence whether you be in a car, a truck. on a motorcycle, or... a bicycle.

I've been hit by cars/trucks when I've been in a car more often than on a bike. Results are the same where machines and people within/upon them sometimes get damaged/destroyed/maimed/killed.

Although that 'other enraged guy' might be totally responsible for that collision, it is MY responsibility to observe and correct for the actions of those 'other guys' doing everything I possibly can to avoid any collision. No matter what I'm driving.
If you value your life, you should expect all other drivers to be offended by your presence on 'their' road.

This is one of those times where 'ME' comes first.

ddk said:

Although that 'other enraged guy' might be totally responsible for that collision, it is MY responsibility to observe and correct for the actions of those 'other guys' doing everything I possibly can to avoid any collision. No matter what I'm driving.
If you value your life, you should expect all other drivers to be offended by your presence on 'their' road.

This is one of those times where 'ME' comes first.

Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but I disagree to an extent. When I was taught to ride a motorcycle, I was told "Ride as if nobody can see you, and some people are trying to kill you". I thought it was hyperbole, but one time I lane split to the front of a line of cars. Totally legal in my state. When the traffic light changed green, I made the mistake of taking off at a fair speed, not racing. But the car I passed dumped the clutch, then tried to ram me off the road with his finger in the air.

Had I not taken evasive action, I could now be dead, so yes, you're right, it's my responsibility to look after my own safety.

HOWEVER, nobody should ever have to put up with that kind of behaviour. It is society's responsibility to make sure a guy with that kind of attitude can never threaten anyone like that again. He should lose his license until he can prove he's not likely to do that again, and if he does do it again, society needs to be protected by putting him in jail.

Sunder said:

... But the car I passed dumped the clutch, then tried to ram me off the road with his finger in the air.

Had I not taken evasive action, I could now be dead, so yes, you're right, it's my responsibility to look after my own safety.

HOWEVER, nobody should ever have to put up with that kind of behaviour. It is society's responsibility to make sure a guy with that kind of attitude can never threaten anyone like that again. He should lose his license until he can prove he's not likely to do that again, and if he does do it again, society needs to be protected by putting him in jail.

Click to expand...

But...
tain't gonna happen all de time, Mcgee
cops seem to be too busy, shooting and strangling the public at large to take notice of bad driving sK177z
Yep, been in the position of being a victim of road rage, but like you acknowledged, I avoided the a**es by being aware of their actions..
Personally I find it hard NOT to yell at brain-dead drivers while pedaling.
Stupid to do that, though, as it only strokes the rage.

"

I'm saying the burdens of prevention and mitigation lie solely with those who impose risks and harms, most especially when they choose their actions without the consent of those who are affected.

If I were asked by an average motorist whether it was OK with me if they drive, I'd say no. It is not my job to mop up their excrement, which is what holding cyclists to motorist rules amounts to. Motorists brought the turd to the party; motorists can clean it up.quote

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So youre advocating that cyclists are exempt from the rules of the road yet are quite entitled to join traffic in any haphazard manner that suits them? So you get upset when your well being is endangered and thus blame others?

If you wish to be a selective anarchist, then avoid that with which you don't agree. Move to the country and stick to cow paths. Because society has a role in regulating behaviour and setting rules of conduct. Without it the madness would be much more widespread.

Being pissed and mad at the world in general is not the pathway to effect change. If we had a greater awareness in general and common courtesy for others, this topic would be redundent.

Kent said:

If we had a greater awareness in general and common courtesy for others, this topic would be redundent.

Click to expand...

ring-ring (troll crawls from under the bridge) :lol:
The point is to find the FOOTINGS, strike the LINE and build the BRIDGE. sorry I tend to metaphors when things get so ugly. This might be one of the only times when redundancy would be welcomed as if it were your long lost brother!
Chalo comes from one footing. John comes from another. Kent you come from another. In fact there are all these points. DDK must know what I'm saying here. Any or all of us can act as catalysts for change.
If we're all basically versions of the same FOOTING, will you agree? The road was built for coaches, for coachmen, not for bicyclists. Bicyclists need a parallel universe, almost, to accomplish the deed. The bike is a worldwide phenom, as is the car. Every geography brings its own set of thrills to the madness.
I do remember when small cars were very dangerous, and to be shunned. Not so today.
Here's a big word... paradigm. Treat it like a soccer ball and bend it. You all have the answer, in pieces, to hand to the motorists of the world.
Colorado made a law for a three foot buffer around any turd riding a bike, so that any turd driving a car had a frame of reference from which to work. That law is in place because some people with John's sentiments stood and delivered before the vote was taken.
You are grown folks. Make your children proud. Make ES known for answers to the most slippery questions, not just the technical ones.
(duck back under the bridge)
and no willow, off topic here, chalo isn't impersonating elvis. he's impersonating me. now you got something to say honey?

i find this thread amusing and sad at the same time.lets all agree to disagree and put the dead horse to bed.

ddk said:

cops seem to be too busy, shooting and strangling the public at large to take notice of bad driving sK177z

Click to expand...

What do you mean? In Australia, that's how we fund the police force - through fines and infringements!

It's gotta be a two pronged approach - personal responsibility, but also societal expectation that people like that can't keep driving. Neither one is sufficient.

slacker said:

agree to disagree and put the dead horse to bed.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's not dead, slacker. Matter of fact, I think about fingers times like these, collecting his candles and prayers for the fatalities in SoCal, and I get chills. Sad chills.
Some cellphone bitty smacked my ass and I wrote about it, and now insurance policies change even faster than before. Please think good thoughts and find some answers, some agreement across the board. Why not anyway? It seems everybody's listening for the answers. Not everybody can be like John. Maybe the folks in Denver realized as much and wrote laws to advocate for the safety of the rider. Do You Get It?

HAROX said:

Some cellphone bitty smacked my ass and I wrote about it, and now insurance policies change even faster than before....

Click to expand...

...and last summer I wrote about my encounter with a policeperson at a poorly signaled and very bizzy intersection in my little town.
Results:
The signal lights were changed to include turn signals in all directions.
Did me writing about it have anything to do with the change?
I'd like to think so but I highly doubt it, although maybe my ramblings might have added to the burden of evidence the lights at that particular intersection needed serious updates.
-More likely the rate of accidents were all the proof needed.

Can we agree we ARE invisible in traffic?
I dress up like a rotund peacock in full display with brightly colored t-shirts and swimming trunks with flags flying and lights blinking and I ride around on some of the strangest-looking bikes (trikes, actually) on this planet and drivers still miss my very existence when crossing a road.

i agree that we should all ride like we are invisible if we want to stay alive as well.i ride a cargo bike and a recumbent tadpole trike and despite being lower to the ground i get noticed more on the trike as most people are unfamilar with them.just assume most people do not see you and act accordingly.i think i get it.

why I must stop at red signal, if I spending my own energy to move, while car driver just lazy pushing pedal.

iperov said:

why I must stop at red signal, if I spending my own energy to move, while car driver just lazy pushing pedal.

Click to expand...

He's spending his petrol (gas), which is worth cash?

It's to protect the cell phone dialing driver from the inconvenience of having an accident in which he/she has killed you.

iperov said:

why I must stop at red signal, if I spending my own energy to move, while car driver just lazy pushing pedal.

Click to expand...

So you should get a law passed thats says you are exempt...from the the traffic laws. Special class.

ddk said:

HAROX said:

Some cellphone bitty smacked my ass and I wrote about it, and now insurance policies change even faster than before....

Click to expand...

...and last summer I wrote about my encounter with a policeperson at a poorly signaled and very bizzy intersection in my little town.
Results:
The signal lights were changed to include turn signals in all directions.
Did me writing about it have anything to do with the change?
I'd like to think so but I highly doubt it, although maybe my ramblings might have added to the burden of evidence the lights at that particular intersection needed serious updates.
-More likely the rate of accidents were all the proof needed.

Can we agree we ARE invisible in traffic?
I dress up like a rotund peacock in full display with brightly colored t-shirts and swimming trunks with flags flying and lights blinking and I ride around on some of the strangest-looking bikes (trikes, actually) on this planet and drivers still miss my very existence when crossing a road.

Click to expand...

Is that a toilet on the back of your bike ?

Lebowski said:

Is that a toilet on the back of your bike ?

Click to expand...

no it's prob'ly a cell phone booth. if it had a half moon and little stars cut out, it might be a toilet. subtle distinction?
i can dig it none the less.
BTW after consulting w/ my feeble brain, I realized, 'free speech coupled to strong emotion is also known as the mighty pen' ...

HAROX said:

The road was built for coaches, for coachmen, not for bicyclists.

Click to expand...

In some cases-- Interstate Highways, for example-- that is true. In other cases, not so much. It's just that they have usurped it as if it were theirs, in bully fashion.

Chalo said:

HAROX said:

The road was built for coaches, for coachmen, not for bicyclists.

Click to expand...

In some cases-- Interstate Highways, for example-- that is true. In other cases, not so much. It's just that they have usurped it as if it were theirs, in bully fashion.

Click to expand...

Ok chalo, granted this much...and more. BTW you and John are "friends not foes" in my user settings, just so you know. I won't pick nits, however, what follows is no such nit to pick, and hasn't been a small thing, since 1792 here goes.

John in CR do you know the riot act was originally intended to sanction the King's prerogative, to put to death an unlawful assembly? It was delivered usually at the place of the assembly, in the midst of seething rage. Just read.

text:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
quote:
"The Riot Act[1] (1714) (1 Geo.1 St.2 c.5) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that authorised local authorities to declare any group of twelve or more people to be unlawfully assembled, and thus have to disperse or face punitive action.

Other provisions
"In the event of buildings being damaged in areas that were not incorporated into a town or city, the residents … were made liable to pay damages to the property owners concerned. "

"Because the authorities were required to read the proclamation that referred to the Riot Act before they could enforce it, the expression "to read the Riot Act" entered into common language as a phrase meaning "to reprimand severely", with the added sense of a stern warning. The phrase remains in common use in the English language."

It also remains in common mis-use, in the process of venting rage, I would add.
Rage is palpable. Why resort to a warning, in thin air instead of black and white? It is never really clear, and so is usually met with outrage.
The Bill of Rights specifically nullifies the power of bloody royalty to hang our congregations, and allows citizens the chance to address and redress.
The business of making the world a safer place is rife, with agents who would rather see it all swept away, than bend to yet another civilized rule. Then there's the civilian, the turd in the toilet as it were.
The pen is mightier than the sword; text, solidly factual, driven by emotion, becomes the backbone of laws, and lawmakers, who strip the emotion out of it, write the cold blooded decrees and chase those resolutions like animals at rutting time.
That's why I plead, to put a face on the anger, put the facts in there, and put the paper in the hands of all law makers/law breakers, because it works, even today, 320 years AFTER the original Riot Act....whooops! the math!

1792, 221 years ago congress hung that bitch of a law out to dry, what had been in the King's books 79 years, since 1714. Is the bill of rights finally over-ripe, due for fallowing?...IDK.. I Dont thinKso tho' :|

Chalo said:

HAROX said:

The road was built for coaches, for coachmen, not for bicyclists.

Click to expand...

In some cases-- Interstate Highways, for example-- that is true. In other cases, not so much. It's just that they have usurped it as if it were theirs, in bully fashion.

Click to expand...

Typical manipulation of the facts to support your invalid arguments. Elvis, other than the limited roadways actually built primarily for bicycles upon which the "bullies" are prohibited, please name even a handful of roads in your area that were built for bicycles. No, something that was a bike path back in the late 1800's and later got widened and paved to accommodate cars doesn't count, because that would be a road "built for cars".

John
just another motor tater

There are different laws for truck drivers, do you guys know that? They can't turn right on red, and often have lower speed limits. Does that make sense?.

Why then, can't a bicycle have slightly different laws? Reasonable ones, like passing stopped traffic, yielding when making a right turn at a stop sign.

It's a fact that a cyclist has better visibility, hearing and maneuvering, as well as a much smaller footprint than a car.

So the fact is, a car is not equal to a bike. Forcing the same exact laws on both is unfair.

I don't advocate reckless biking, or blowing red lights in front of traffic, but there are a handful of times when a slightly different law would really help a cyclist.