Being a nicer cyclist

[erikgarrison.livejournal.com]

What are some ways that cyclists can positively engage drivers, gain their respect, and encourage them to use caution when they are sharing the road with cyclists?

Comments

[jimmyfergus.livejournal.com]

It is not illegal to ride there. You are allowed to take the space
if required for safety (which in this case it is)

If you are properly marked/lit, you are not especially at risk from
drivers from behind, and the relative risks are not for you to decide
on behalf of cyclists

Getting doored can be fatal, as it was on Mass ave some years ago.
It's certainly serious, as I can attest.

I am sorry that you feel that bicycles shouldn't ride on the road
under these circumstances. Perhaps you should take it up with the
legislature if you are not happy that cyclists have equal legal rights
to be there.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"It is not illegal to ride there. You are allowed to take the space if required for safety (which in this case it is)"

Please go to the top of this discussion. Observe that the original posting asked about what bikers can do to get drivers to respect them... not what bikers are legally permitted to do. You may be right, but you're missing the point.

I maintain that riding along on your bike deliberately straddling the line between lanes is a great way to make drivers not respect you. I also believe strongly that if a road has a bike lane and you don't believe the bike lane is a safe place to ride, you shouldn't be biking on that road, or you're deliberately taking unnecessary risks with your safety. (For which I will not respect you.)

Please consider how you'd feel if I made either of the following statements after driving in a car:
* "I *had to* drive down that road halfway between lanes because I didn't feel safe driving in my lane."
* "I know that road's lanes aren't wide enough for my car, but I have the *right* to drive on that road!"

Would you respect me after either of those statements? I didn't think so. But those are exactly the arguments you're making.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

if a road has a bike lane and you don't believe the bike lane is a safe place to ride, you shouldn't be biking on that road, or you're deliberately taking unnecessary risks with your safety. (For which I will not respect you.)

There are a lot of places in Boston you simply could not go on a bike if you obeyed this rule consistently.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"There are a lot of places in Boston you simply could not go on a bike if you obeyed this rule consistently."

Bingo!

[m00n.livejournal.com]

So your solution for how to improve bicycle-driver relations is that people should just not go certain places by bicycle?

I'll also add that in most of Boston this rules out a pretty substantial number of destinations south of Back Bay...

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"So your solution for how to improve bicycle-driver relations is that people should just not go certain places by bicycle?"

I'm saying that if a road presents you with the two options of riding unsafely or violating the rules of the road, you're an idiot to ride on it, and you'll piss off drivers who have to worry about accidentally killing you.

And yes, while I think bicycling is great, I'm unwilling to bicycle in most of Boston because I don't think it's safe. That's practicing what I preach.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that if a road presents you with the two options of riding unsafely or violating the rules of the road, you're an idiot to ride on it, and you'll piss off drivers who have to worry about accidentally killing you.

For the record, this is an example of one of the places where you said "the bike isn't welcome to take up a whole regular lane if it's obeying the rules of the road."

Another one is here: (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/2298752.html?thread=26781568#t26781568) "Then it's just plain not safe to bike on that road, and you shouldn't be there."

I just don't understand where you drew this conclusion that if there is a bike lane on a road, that's the only place where a cyclist can bike safely on that road (and if it's in a door zone, then there is *no place* where a cyclist should be on the road).

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

Actually I checked and the state's manual does say (of bicyclists) "On a roadway with more than one lane in the direction of travel, you must stay in one lane and not unnecessarily restrict a passing vehicle’s ability to overtake you."

So, maybe I was wrong above in saying that a bike can use a regular lane if there's a bike lane. Sorry.

[emannths.livejournal.com]

Yeah, "unnecessarily." I would imagine "avoiding the door zone" is considered a necessity.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

Actually the very first thing it says about biocycles is "When riding on public ways, bicyclists must obey the same basic traffic laws and regulations that apply to motor vehicle operators."

I don't think straddling lanes while driving is generally accepted for motor vehicle operators.

And now, folks, I'm going to stop replying here, because the logjam that was preventing me from being able to work has just cleared so I have to be responsible now.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Bob Mionske (a lawyer specializing in cycling issues) has dissected language like this for a variety of states' laws on his web site. That "unnecessarily" has a lot of leeway to it (personal safety, for instance, is necessary). Bicycles are not usually restricted to bike lanes.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

There is no "rule of the road" that says I have to stay within the marked bike lane.

And I believe the correct solution to addressing unsafe riding conditions is not to avoid bicycling, but to advocate for better bicycle safety and practice defensive cycling techniques.

I might also add that most of that danger is ENTIRELY dependent on the way that people drive. Most roads are only dangerous because of the way that people choose to drive on them. I am not increasing the danger to the driver by being there, therefore it is the drivers that need to change their ways.

[jimmyfergus.livejournal.com]

Please go to you own comment that I was directly replying to. You asserted it was illegal. It is not.

I want to avoid antagonizing drivers, but if they are unwilling to accept my reasonable, legal and rightful presence without being antagonized, then so be it.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter4.pdf
(Page 103.)

[jimmyfergus.livejournal.com]

I've read it all, and more. I see nothing in there which supports your assertion.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I assume he's referring to the bit that says that when on a road with more than one lane in each direction, you have to keep to one lane. The intended meaning of this isn't clear to me: surely it isn't supposed to mean that you can't change lanes?

[jimmyfergus.livejournal.com]

The roads are plenty wide enough for my bicycle, thank you. They are
not always wide enough for a bicycle beside a car, but they're
not safe for two cars side-by-side either.

Are you saying if you're in your car on mass ave and someone
is parked into the rightmost lane, you should avoid driving rather
than move your car left to stay clear of them.

Let's get another thing clear: Cyclists are not legally
required to stay out of the non-bike lane, when there is a bike
lane. If the only safe way to proceed is to move left out of the bike
lane, then that is what they should do, what they are legally allowed
to do, and what is reasonable for them to do. If you don't like that
as a car driver, it's you who is being unreasonable.

I'm not sure why I'm continuing to allow myself to be trolled by you.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"The roads are plenty wide enough for my bicycle, thank you. They are
not always wide enough for a bicycle beside a car, but they're
not safe for two cars side-by-side either. "

Please point out ANYWHERE where I said the bike isn't welcome to take up a whole regular lane if it's obeying the rules of the road.

"Are you saying if you're in your car on mass ave and someone
is parked into the rightmost lane, you should avoid driving rather
than move your car left to stay clear of them."

The situation is in no way analogous.

"Let's get another thing clear: Cyclists are not legally
required to stay out of the non-bike lane, when there is a bike lane."

Yo, dimwit, I never said they are, you just imagined I did. I said they should get IN A LANE, not straddle two of them, and obey the laws for the lane they're in. I said that bikes don't have some special right to ignore the lanes. Look it up:
http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter4.pdf
Pages 102-103. Read it and weep. You're the one who seems to be arguing that bikers are above the law.

[jimmyfergus.livejournal.com]

Easy now. I imagined nothing. Just settle down. I was trying to
cover possibilities as to why you keep asserting that the requirement
to be fully in lane trumps the need/right to keep to the left of
obstructions/dangers on the right.

So basically, you'd be happy if bikes moved another few feet left and
treated the lane line as some sort of electric zone, even if it was
not otherwise necessary. You're very hard to please, and I don't
think any other road users are going to manage it.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"So basically, you'd be happy if bikes moved another few feet left and treated the lane line as some sort of electric zone, even if it was not otherwise necessary."

Gee, I'm so TERRIBLE for expecting bicyclists to perform some vague approximation of obeying the law. What a meanie I am.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Please go to the top of this discussion. Observe that the original posting asked about what bikers can do to get drivers to respect them... not what bikers are legally permitted to do. You may be right, but you're missing the point.

Please read what you fucking wrote (I know this is useless now that tfarrell's account is deleted):

because you're illegally not riding in your lane?