MattyCiii
100 kW
Because, you know, motorists always obey speed limits, actually stop for red lights, and man-up when they drive over someone's face...Joseph C. said:
yeah.
The psychology of why cyclists enrage car drivers
- Thread starter dm9876
- Start date
yeah.
MattyCiii said:
Of course they don't. But those guys in New York aren't helping cycling advocacy.
Here is a contrasting video of Brussels - which for all intent and purposes seems to be a complete dump and atypical of most European cities.
[youtube]dMMFoYA6_J4[/youtube]
John, if a cyclist is lazy for not wanting to stop when not necessary (no one around, for example), what is a motorist who uses an engine to move? Are they not lazy?
It's not that cyclists are lazy, if they were, they wouldn't be pedaling a bike.
It's always interesting when I come to a 4 way stop the same time as 2 other cyclists, from different directions. It's a complete level playing field, so usually the outcome is the most efficient/safe balance, where we all keep rolling, but cautiously avoid each other by flowing rightwards, sort of like a traffic circle.
IMO, cyclists enrage car drivers because we are simple outside of the normal flow. Anyone outside of the normal flow is annoying to something who is in the normal flow. Even if I slow a car from reaching a red light 2 seconds sooner, it still disrupts their flow.
What if streets were nothing but pavement. How annoying would cyclists be then? It would be a lot more chaotic but no one would be pissed at the cyclist who passes 10 sitting cars because he is only 2 feet wide and there is only 4 ft of room.
It's not that cyclists are lazy, if they were, they wouldn't be pedaling a bike.
It's always interesting when I come to a 4 way stop the same time as 2 other cyclists, from different directions. It's a complete level playing field, so usually the outcome is the most efficient/safe balance, where we all keep rolling, but cautiously avoid each other by flowing rightwards, sort of like a traffic circle.
IMO, cyclists enrage car drivers because we are simple outside of the normal flow. Anyone outside of the normal flow is annoying to something who is in the normal flow. Even if I slow a car from reaching a red light 2 seconds sooner, it still disrupts their flow.
What if streets were nothing but pavement. How annoying would cyclists be then? It would be a lot more chaotic but no one would be pissed at the cyclist who passes 10 sitting cars because he is only 2 feet wide and there is only 4 ft of room.
Chalo
100 TW
John in CR said:
They don't usually act out against the many, many more car drivers who slow them down even more. Car taters get really worked up about a small monthly Critical Mass, for instance, while holding their own citywide Critical Masses twice a day, every day.
How deeply ironic for a motor tater to level an accusation of laziness against pedal cyclists.
I see it this way: The rules of the road do not exist just for their own sake, but to mitigate the harms and hazards created by various road users. These harms and hazards are almost entirely the work of motorists, and ethically speaking they are motorists' responsibilities. The ethical responsibility of a cyclist, like a ped, is to preserve his or her own safety while taking all reasonable measures not to inconvenience or endanger others.
A motorist may find it irritating when a cyclist travels through a red light with no cross traffic, but in fact that is often doing a favor to the cyclist and the motorist alike-- getting the cyclist out of harm's way, and subtracting a slow-moving road user from the intersection at the moment a group of cars are all trying to rush through at once. Most wouldn't think twice about it if it were a ped.
Idaho State law has the good sense to codify the common-sense practices of transportational cyclists-- for a cyclist, a red light is to be treated as a stop sign, and a stop sign is to be treated as a yield sign. The fact that such regulation has not become pervasive elsewhere is more a symptom of ethically challenged motorists wishing to impose their own obligations upon other more benign road users than it is any sort of sensible policy.
Sunder
10 MW
Chalo said:
Critical Mass have got it wrong. They shouldnt be blocking streets once a month with their bikes. They should be blocking streets with their cars, with large signs on the back saying "This car wouldnt be here if we had bike infrastructure".Then in the traffic jam, drivers will see how much traffic cycling alleviates. When they get to the car park, it's all full of cars with signs on it.
Then maybe you'd be getting drivers petitioning for better bike paths to get those extra cars off the road.
In Sydney, you need 2.5% extra traffic to slow travel times by 10% A few cyclists and their friends doing this oine day a month would get the point across.
John in CR
100 TW
Chalo, not only do you exemplify much of what has gone wrong with the US with your hypocritical ways and sense of entitlement, but the attitude of you and those like you enrages motorists, so the next time an Austin cyclist is killed by a motorist keep in mind that you share in the blame.
John
just another motor tater
John
just another motor tater
If you want to talk about entitlement, why is a car entitled to 12x the space as a bike? Because that's physics, but it's still entitlement.
Cars /= bikes
There is a line to draw, and it's somewhere between the poor soul on a bicycle waiting behind miles of stacked up cars because there isn't a bike lane, and the jackass kamikazee riders in places like NYC.
I understand the logic of "same road, same rules". But I also understand the logic of a poor decision as a car driver meaning the death of others.
I've been a car driver, cyclist, e-biker, e-moto rider, pedestrian. Hopefully you've been part of the category that you speak of.
If you know anything about cyclist deaths here in Austin, you'll know that they have nearly all been the result of an inattentive/drunk driver. NOT someone who is pissed off at cyclists.
Cars /= bikes
There is a line to draw, and it's somewhere between the poor soul on a bicycle waiting behind miles of stacked up cars because there isn't a bike lane, and the jackass kamikazee riders in places like NYC.
I understand the logic of "same road, same rules". But I also understand the logic of a poor decision as a car driver meaning the death of others.
I've been a car driver, cyclist, e-biker, e-moto rider, pedestrian. Hopefully you've been part of the category that you speak of.
If you know anything about cyclist deaths here in Austin, you'll know that they have nearly all been the result of an inattentive/drunk driver. NOT someone who is pissed off at cyclists.
dogman dan
1 PW
Those Idaho laws do make sense. A slower moving bike has better vision and hearing of the situation, and can judge if blowing the light or sign is safe or not.
But I won't hold my breath waiting for motorists to get it that it's good. Especially if they see riders that cut it too fine as seen in the bike messenger races.
My big problem is more simple, I just wish drivers would go back to looking out the windows while they drive. Two nasty fatal crashes lately localy show how it's getting. One was texting at 80 mph, killing two people across the highway. The other "glanced at her radio for just a second", But she chose to do that while making a left turn across a crosswalk on a colledge campus full of pedestirans at all times. That one noticed the lady she ran down when she bounced off the windshield.
At least a motorist enraged at you saw ya!
But I won't hold my breath waiting for motorists to get it that it's good. Especially if they see riders that cut it too fine as seen in the bike messenger races.
My big problem is more simple, I just wish drivers would go back to looking out the windows while they drive. Two nasty fatal crashes lately localy show how it's getting. One was texting at 80 mph, killing two people across the highway. The other "glanced at her radio for just a second", But she chose to do that while making a left turn across a crosswalk on a colledge campus full of pedestirans at all times. That one noticed the lady she ran down when she bounced off the windshield.
At least a motorist enraged at you saw ya!
Chalo
100 TW
John in CR said:
There's that ethical retardation I was talking about.
hillzofvalp
100 kW
You know, motorists around this college campus don't seem to care much about a certain cyclist who chooses to run lights: the Jimmy John's Delivery rider. Everyone loves them and knows they have to be freaky fast! To be honest before I started working for Jimmy John's I was fairly righteous about stopping at lights while on the ebike.. but if you're doing the same intersections all the time for hours and trying to make some good tips, it really is only practical to come to a complete stop at those most dangerous, busy intersections. Of course, I never blow through intersections.. I always approach cautiously.
RLD70
100 W
Joseph C. said:
This is all Ill say idiotic cyclists like these morons are the reason why we have a bad name and I can see why motorists dont really like us that much. Bottom line is use something called COMMON SENSE and follow the rules of the road otherwise some really bad things could happen to you.
gestalt
10 kW
"common sense" and "the rules of the road" are not mutually exclusive.
Ugh, you can't use alley cat racers as an example of cyclist behavior. Sure it's great to post a lucas brunelle video and exclaim "look at what jerks these bike messengers are!" but in actuality most of the alleycat racers I know (my best bro just got second place in the friday night blizzard race) ride pretty reasonably compared to what you see in "line of sight". These are races that happen once a month in cities like seattle, boston and new york much like a critical mass.
hillzofvalp is starting to get it from actually riding more than to and from work with the occasional pleasure ride. you can't spend as much time on the streets with time, safety and energy being a factor and not start running those reds. I myself pedal a 200lb trike with multiple flesh sacks loaded on it around the city and I can tell you that if the way is clear and safe I am going to ignore that light and keep my momentum. with a collective 1000lbs rolling that momentum is more precious to me than my own children if I had them. It's safer and better for the flow of traffic if I just keep going no matter the ire of cager on his cell phone waiting. you're not going to change his mind by stopping at a red light and waiting for the no cars to go by untill the light goes green again.
we ride to break away from being herded like cattle, why some of you would want to let a programmed timing switch connected to a series of colored lights decide for you when it's safe to cross a street is beyond me.
Ugh, you can't use alley cat racers as an example of cyclist behavior. Sure it's great to post a lucas brunelle video and exclaim "look at what jerks these bike messengers are!" but in actuality most of the alleycat racers I know (my best bro just got second place in the friday night blizzard race) ride pretty reasonably compared to what you see in "line of sight". These are races that happen once a month in cities like seattle, boston and new york much like a critical mass.
hillzofvalp is starting to get it from actually riding more than to and from work with the occasional pleasure ride. you can't spend as much time on the streets with time, safety and energy being a factor and not start running those reds. I myself pedal a 200lb trike with multiple flesh sacks loaded on it around the city and I can tell you that if the way is clear and safe I am going to ignore that light and keep my momentum. with a collective 1000lbs rolling that momentum is more precious to me than my own children if I had them. It's safer and better for the flow of traffic if I just keep going no matter the ire of cager on his cell phone waiting. you're not going to change his mind by stopping at a red light and waiting for the no cars to go by untill the light goes green again.
we ride to break away from being herded like cattle, why some of you would want to let a programmed timing switch connected to a series of colored lights decide for you when it's safe to cross a street is beyond me.
John in CR
100 TW
Chalo said:
You're the one with the ethics problem, because in your selfishness you can't see that others pay a price for your actions. The way you ride contributes to driver aggression toward cyclists, period. That makes you partially to blame for the problems you complain about. The fact that drivers are in the wrong is irrelevant, just as is any justification you may have for changes in the law. Stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution.
MattyCiii
100 kW
Sunder said:
Sunder that is positively brilliant!
gestalt
10 kW
I second that, if we could get 20 cars together with signage to just roll around downtown from 3pm-7pm it would really have an impact on peoples perception.
alas, I have no car...
alas, I have no car...
John in CR
100 TW
Gestalt and Hillzofalp,
I understand perfectly well why you do it. The typical motorist doesn't, so it pisses them off in large part because they perceive it as you displaying of Chalo's attitude and other explanations in the initial linked article. Motorists don't even get it on those occasions when you're actually doing them a favor by clearing the intersection early. Electric drives are available now, so the "it's too hard" or "it takes too much energy" doesn't fly. You chose your mode of transportation, so live with the consequences. If you're going to bend the law to suit your own needs, then one of the consequences is going to be friction with other road users. Another is probably an occasional ticket that more than offsets any economic gain over the long term.
An ideal solution would be an introduction of common sense to enforcement and interpretation that would benefit all in the form of better convenience and flow. That's the way it works here, but good luck getting that kind of change through in the land of quotas and too many police with traffic authority. In the meantime, greater harmony is accomplished by playing by the same rules and being the most courteous group on the road.
I understand perfectly well why you do it. The typical motorist doesn't, so it pisses them off in large part because they perceive it as you displaying of Chalo's attitude and other explanations in the initial linked article. Motorists don't even get it on those occasions when you're actually doing them a favor by clearing the intersection early. Electric drives are available now, so the "it's too hard" or "it takes too much energy" doesn't fly. You chose your mode of transportation, so live with the consequences. If you're going to bend the law to suit your own needs, then one of the consequences is going to be friction with other road users. Another is probably an occasional ticket that more than offsets any economic gain over the long term.
An ideal solution would be an introduction of common sense to enforcement and interpretation that would benefit all in the form of better convenience and flow. That's the way it works here, but good luck getting that kind of change through in the land of quotas and too many police with traffic authority. In the meantime, greater harmony is accomplished by playing by the same rules and being the most courteous group on the road.
October 2011, some cellphone bimbo rear ended my car. She was talking away I'm sure and forgot to use the brake until the very last second, from about 40mph. Her insurance contested the event.
To the chase: After several months of communication with my company, and my company in touch with hers, and also in touch with the company of the person I rear ended, said bimbo's company picked up the tab for all of it, ALL of it!
The BIG resolution: within 30 days of settling, all three national insurance companies involved instituted new policies regarding cell phones and driving. They now have ads, telling customers 'if you have no accidents while using cell phones, we'll lower your deductible'. That's positive reinforcement, while the lawyers figure out how to write it in red on each contract, while they get the policy aligned to have the right to all phone records IF cellphone usage is implicated in an accident. That change is underway folks, and I'm so very happy.
If you think you can text and drive, then you ought to be able to put a piano keyboard on the dashboard as well and 'write' music as you journey along. It's all the same…distraction.
As for being a cyclist who gives the 'sport' a bad name, I can't count the number of boneheaded maneuvers I've seen on video from self centered ES members, who see absolutely nothing wrong with their scooter antics. There's no real double standard. If it's safe or not, those videos don't lie folks. Many of you are SEEN as unsafe, on a bicycle, an E bike, a motorcycle, or a car, and there isn't a thing you can do to put rouge on that pig.
And yeah. Reasoning with the help of simple physics makes a difference. Someday soon cellphone bimbos will be in the extra high risk category. I spoke up, and added my voice to others, and the policies are morphing.
Imagine, telling your insurance company, 'if you let these cellphone infractions go unheeded, your company will die the death of a thousand little cuts, and you'll be out of a job.' Yep, the Underwriters who read my diatribe realized the ruse was up, and faced it, short of total financial ruin, the last thing an insurance company wants to lose is the company.
To the chase: After several months of communication with my company, and my company in touch with hers, and also in touch with the company of the person I rear ended, said bimbo's company picked up the tab for all of it, ALL of it!
The BIG resolution: within 30 days of settling, all three national insurance companies involved instituted new policies regarding cell phones and driving. They now have ads, telling customers 'if you have no accidents while using cell phones, we'll lower your deductible'. That's positive reinforcement, while the lawyers figure out how to write it in red on each contract, while they get the policy aligned to have the right to all phone records IF cellphone usage is implicated in an accident. That change is underway folks, and I'm so very happy.
If you think you can text and drive, then you ought to be able to put a piano keyboard on the dashboard as well and 'write' music as you journey along. It's all the same…distraction.
As for being a cyclist who gives the 'sport' a bad name, I can't count the number of boneheaded maneuvers I've seen on video from self centered ES members, who see absolutely nothing wrong with their scooter antics. There's no real double standard. If it's safe or not, those videos don't lie folks. Many of you are SEEN as unsafe, on a bicycle, an E bike, a motorcycle, or a car, and there isn't a thing you can do to put rouge on that pig.
And yeah. Reasoning with the help of simple physics makes a difference. Someday soon cellphone bimbos will be in the extra high risk category. I spoke up, and added my voice to others, and the policies are morphing.
Imagine, telling your insurance company, 'if you let these cellphone infractions go unheeded, your company will die the death of a thousand little cuts, and you'll be out of a job.' Yep, the Underwriters who read my diatribe realized the ruse was up, and faced it, short of total financial ruin, the last thing an insurance company wants to lose is the company.
Kent
1 kW
As for being a cyclist who gives the 'sport' a bad name, I can't count the number of boneheaded maneuvers I've seen on video from self centered ES members, who see absolutely nothing wrong with their scooter antics. There's no real double standard. If it's safe or not, those videos don't lie folks. Many of you are SEEN as unsafe, on a bicycle, an E bike, a motorcycle, or a car, and there isn't a thing you can do to put rouge on that pig.
+1 If one tears down a sidewalk endangering pedistrians, tears tru open parks, jumps curbs, runs lights, drives up and down stairs, and careens down one way streets weaving through traffic the wrong way-in general acting like a drugged up 14 year old-is it any wonder the public is pissed at bikes in general? The videos on ES are constantly demonstrating that behavior. I just watched one.
We ignore traffic laws when it suits us, but then get pissed when motorists are rude or endangering. Which is it? Do we expect behavior from others that we ourselves feel we are exempt from?
+1 If one tears down a sidewalk endangering pedistrians, tears tru open parks, jumps curbs, runs lights, drives up and down stairs, and careens down one way streets weaving through traffic the wrong way-in general acting like a drugged up 14 year old-is it any wonder the public is pissed at bikes in general? The videos on ES are constantly demonstrating that behavior. I just watched one.
We ignore traffic laws when it suits us, but then get pissed when motorists are rude or endangering. Which is it? Do we expect behavior from others that we ourselves feel we are exempt from?
John in CR
100 TW
I realize it's a fine distinction, but there's a difference in being SEEN as riding in an unsafe manner or in violation of the law, vs being SEEN as believing the law doesn't apply to you. With the former the motorists believe you'll receive your just rewards, but the latter enrages them. While I'm sure the crazy messengers piss off those they startle, and think them a menace, that's not where the rage comes from. Motorists know quite well that the cyclists treating stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stops signs isn't inherently dangerous. They want to be able to do it too without consequence.
gestalt
10 kW
as far as I know I've never almost killed someone due to my riding style, though every day there's another motorist who nearly rolls me over while talking on a cellphone, right hooking or rushing that stale (read red) light. only my wits keep me alive, without them I would just drive i guess.
with great power comes great responsibility, I'm putting 100-500w down on the pavement with my legs. how many is even your smallest two door putting down? I'm not biking for the cagers sense of well being, I'm riding for mine and my freedom. you might call it reckless but it's anything but. rules be damned.
Rules be damned? Then physics be damned as well. Do the math, people.
10mph= 176ips 30 mph, multiply by 3. That's 528 ips. 528 ips isn't all that fast to travel on your ass, until you hit an oncoming car. I guarantee you it's too fast at that point.
Contrary to opinions from people who would like to argue about rules, physics never bends to the will of the "believer".
We live in a time of high tech. Car makers have been refining their vehicles to save the lives of the dumb asses who feel the need for speed. The cars could be safe enough. The drivers are definitely not. And yet, everyone seems to consider it their God given right to drive, even when they are klutzes. There are more of them every day. Used to be, there was an abundance of drunk klutzes. My how times change.
You'll glean respect, looking at a traffic pattern in China. This here DIY community of electric cyclists is so small, it has absolutely zero clout, worldwide. Chinese E bikes are tame, and so are the riders, generally.
Look at the E bike of America. What personality! What verve! What a crock!
Being seen as unsafe, or being seen as believing contrary dogma is no different, as physical laws are involved in both. John you know this first hand, especially the hand that you just Kentucky Fried last month. It's all the same. If something is said to be like something else, blahblahblah, it's physics, it's equal to...(mmm pie!)
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is …a duck.
No simple answer though, even for a wise man, for a wise man is way frikken more complex than the answers spilling from his lips. Anger is like hunger, like lust, like greed.
Please take heart. Take a few extra minutes and arrive on time, and stay off the sidewalks unless somebody says that's okay, which, in some parts of the country, it is.
Wits and balance. We all shake the hand of the Grim Reaper daily. Does pitching a bitch about it make you the victor? My heavens get wise young man. Nobody cares about your riot act, especially when you're jumping the queue for the umpteenth time.
This shit is dangerous, and anger is a multiplier. Psychology demands you tell the truth about it. Otherwise, nobody will walk away with any wisdom at all.
10mph= 176ips 30 mph, multiply by 3. That's 528 ips. 528 ips isn't all that fast to travel on your ass, until you hit an oncoming car. I guarantee you it's too fast at that point.
Contrary to opinions from people who would like to argue about rules, physics never bends to the will of the "believer".
We live in a time of high tech. Car makers have been refining their vehicles to save the lives of the dumb asses who feel the need for speed. The cars could be safe enough. The drivers are definitely not. And yet, everyone seems to consider it their God given right to drive, even when they are klutzes. There are more of them every day. Used to be, there was an abundance of drunk klutzes. My how times change.
You'll glean respect, looking at a traffic pattern in China. This here DIY community of electric cyclists is so small, it has absolutely zero clout, worldwide. Chinese E bikes are tame, and so are the riders, generally.
Look at the E bike of America. What personality! What verve! What a crock!
Being seen as unsafe, or being seen as believing contrary dogma is no different, as physical laws are involved in both. John you know this first hand, especially the hand that you just Kentucky Fried last month. It's all the same. If something is said to be like something else, blahblahblah, it's physics, it's equal to...(mmm pie!)
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is …a duck.
No simple answer though, even for a wise man, for a wise man is way frikken more complex than the answers spilling from his lips. Anger is like hunger, like lust, like greed.
Please take heart. Take a few extra minutes and arrive on time, and stay off the sidewalks unless somebody says that's okay, which, in some parts of the country, it is.
Wits and balance. We all shake the hand of the Grim Reaper daily. Does pitching a bitch about it make you the victor? My heavens get wise young man. Nobody cares about your riot act, especially when you're jumping the queue for the umpteenth time.
This shit is dangerous, and anger is a multiplier. Psychology demands you tell the truth about it. Otherwise, nobody will walk away with any wisdom at all.
Chalo
100 TW
Kent said:
Who is endangering whom here?
Who is responsible for gun safety-- gun owners or unarmed people?
Who is responsible for nuclear safety-- reactor operators, or people who just happen to be living nearby?
Who is responsible for food safety and purity-- commercial food producers or people shopping at the grocery store?
Now tell me who brings mortal danger to the roads, and why people on bikes should be held responsible for what those people do?
These are ethical questions, and you and John in CR seem to be having fundamental problems with ethical issues.
fundamental problems with ethical issues, haha that's good!
You're just almost on target Chalo, but not this time. A gun owner may be unarmed. I sure as hell am, unarmed. Once upon a time I was irresponsible for food quality, and my wife ended up getting poisoned. Screwed that up good. Go look at some motorcycle failure videos, and answer who's responsible there. As for bikes, when I was six I ran my schwinn into the back of a nice ford falcon..screwed that up pretty good too. I went out plinking with my buddy and shot him in the foot. It's all mortal danger, chalo.
Thank God I don't handle uranium.
Ethics, in place of physics? Not hardly.
While I'm on this subject, the most common mistake of most vehicle operators is getting behind the wheel with a load getting ready to explode. Then it's off to the races. Now you don't want to be around those people when they're getting ready to become a human sewage ejector. You think it's funny? NOT.
I see them in traffic all the time.
Once again physics is behind all this mess. Forget ethics. Process of elimination trumps all. Before I mount my bike, I make sure the "fundamental problems" are eliminated, just so there are no ethical issues.
You're just almost on target Chalo, but not this time. A gun owner may be unarmed. I sure as hell am, unarmed. Once upon a time I was irresponsible for food quality, and my wife ended up getting poisoned. Screwed that up good. Go look at some motorcycle failure videos, and answer who's responsible there. As for bikes, when I was six I ran my schwinn into the back of a nice ford falcon..screwed that up pretty good too. I went out plinking with my buddy and shot him in the foot. It's all mortal danger, chalo.
Thank God I don't handle uranium.
Ethics, in place of physics? Not hardly.
While I'm on this subject, the most common mistake of most vehicle operators is getting behind the wheel with a load getting ready to explode. Then it's off to the races. Now you don't want to be around those people when they're getting ready to become a human sewage ejector. You think it's funny? NOT.
I see them in traffic all the time.
Once again physics is behind all this mess. Forget ethics. Process of elimination trumps all. Before I mount my bike, I make sure the "fundamental problems" are eliminated, just so there are no ethical issues.
