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

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

Tim, my point is that they ARE endangering themselves, in a different way than they're avoiding but in a very real way nonetheless, and that if they don't feel they can safely bike in the area marked out for them to do so in, they should find another road because otherwise they're taking a foolish risk.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Right, but since that danger is mostly (if not entirely) introduced by the presence of the DRIVER, it is the DRIVER's responsibility to see to it that they do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of any bicyclists they encounter.

Also, if drivers would just slow down and wait when necessary instead of acting like it is their god-given right to keep moving at the speed of their choosing, I think they would find that they improved their own safety as well as the safety of the bicyclist they're passing.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"Right, but since that danger is mostly (if not entirely) introduced by the presence of the DRIVER, it is the DRIVER's responsibility to see to it that they do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of any bicyclists they encounter."

Look at my original remarks above and observe that I am talking about people who are violating the rules of the road by straddling two lanes rather than picking one, getting in it, and obeying the rules. They're the ones acting like rules don't apply to them, not the driver.

Let's see... if I want to lay in the middle of an unlit road at night in a head to toe catsuit exactly matched to the color of the road, with matching hood and gloves, blindfolded, with earplugs, any danger to me is introduced only by the presence of a DRIVER, and the DRIVER should be responsible if I get hit... right?

This discussion was supposed to be about what bikers can do to be respected by drivers. And here you are, arguing desperately that bikers are above the law and that drivers should be responsible for their safety no matter how stupidly the bikers act. Do you think this is helpful toward gaining drivers' respect?

[m00n.livejournal.com]

As I said before, there is certainly no "rule of the road" dictating that a bicyclist cannot straddle the edge of the bike lane.

Re, your second comment, firstly, why would someone do that OTHER than for the purpose of being hit by a car? And secondly, even if you hit someone who was doing that with your car (or bicycle) you would still be just as at-fault as you would be if you were to hit someone dressed entirely in international orange, in a cross walk, in broad daylight. Unfair, perhaps, but true.

Lastly, this was supposed to be a discussion about:
1. What are some ways that cyclists can positively engage drivers

I think we're doing this! Well, sometimes more positively than others but, it's a start!

2. gain their respect, and

As I said in a previous comment (to someone else), I don't think this is likely to happen until the number of bicyclists on the road grows enough that it wouldn't even occur to the most devoted driver to say things like "If a place in my own city isn't easy enough to get to by bicycle, people should just use a car." In other words, bicycles must first become so ubiquitous that drivers expect to deal with them on ALL roads at ALL times the same way it is now with cars.

3. encourage them to use caution when they are sharing the road with cyclists?

Well I'm trying but the prevailing attitude coming from drivers seems to be: If my car is dangerous to bicyclists then bicyclists should try to stay as far away from it as possible, even if that means taking a different route or not taking a bicycle at all. Given how hard it is to get a city to invest in bicycling infrastructure BEFORE anyone is actually biking anywhere, this seems like a pretty dependable way to make sure that biking never becomes any more popular in Boston than it is today.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

"As I said before, there is certainly no "rule of the road" dictating that a bicyclist cannot straddle the edge of the bike lane."

Hmm. The state might beg to differ from you. There is a very specific instruction to motorcyclists in the stae drivers manual: "Do not ride along pavement lines, between lanes of traffic." It also says to bicyclists: "When riding on public ways, bicyclists must obey the same basic traffic laws and regulations that apply to motor vehicle operators." I think it's pretty clear that two wheeled vehicles are not permitted to ride down the line between lanes.

But if you don't believe me, then I suppose you might as well go get a car and drive straight down the middle of the line between lanes for a few hours, and see what the cops have to say about it. After all, the rules of the road are the same for cars as for bicycles.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I think you're correct that according to the letter of the law, bicyclists cannot ride exactly on the line between lanes. But I'm not sure how meaningful this is in practice. I gather that the law for motorcycles is there to prevent lane splitting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting) But Massachusetts law specifically permits lane splitting for bicycles: "the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way." (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm)

This technically makes sense in that bicycles have a narrower profile than most motorcycles, so a bicycle can usually pass a car on the right while staying in the lane. But then if you're lane splitting anyway, what difference does it make whether you're staying (narrowly) in one lane or riding right on the lane divider? I'm unsure that there's any sound policy behind the wording of this law.

More generally, I'm puzzled that this seems to bother you a lot as a general principle, even apart from whether a cyclist is doing it to slip between lanes of stopped traffic (which is genuinely dangerous). When there is a bike lane, I usually ride a couple of inches to the left of the lane in order to stay out of the door zone. When the pavement is bad, I often slip into the very left side of the bike lane to avoid potholes. It sounds like this is the kind of behavior that you say enrages drivers. I'm honestly not sure why it would.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with you that "the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way" means that bicycles may split lanes; if anything, a bicycle splitting lanes in the manner we're discussing is not keeping to the right, they're keeping to the left. If they were keeping to the right of the bicycle lane, they'd be bumping into parked cars or the curb. If they were keeping to the right of the regular lane, they'd be... in the bicycle lane.

Why it bothers me... bicycle lanes take 3 to 4 feet of the road width away from regular lanes, thus making regular lanes narrower, harder to negotiate, and less safe... and then bicyclists refuse to use them, instead preferring to straddle lanes, making any attempt to use regular lanes even more perilous. And then to top it all off, here I am hearing blatant disregard for rules of the road, and people getting all snippy at me for having the unmitigated gall to suggest that bicyclists ought to obey the law and are stupid if they choose to deliberately ride on roads on which they don't feel safe.

Is it not apparent why that would be somewhat galling?

[erikgarrison.livejournal.com]

"bicycle lanes take 3 to 4 feet of the road width away from regular lanes, thus making regular lanes narrower, harder to negotiate, and less safe"

If you don't feel there is sufficient space to safely operate your vehicle, you should slow to a reasonable and prudent speed. Not only is this common sense, but it is explicitly spelled out in Massachusetts law. Chapter 90, section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws begins: "No person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper."

Reasonable speed is not the posted speed limit. The speed limit is not a directive, it's a limit. Reasonable speed has nothing at all to do with the speed limit.

In no case does the addition of a bicycle lane make the existing lanes so narrow that you cannot drive a personal vehicle through them at reasonable speed. If you find one please tell city officials that their engineers and road crews made a mistake.

OK, this went far enough into the "what can cars do" territory, and the discussion is supposed to be about cyclists. Apologies for any implied vitriol... I think I'm agreeing more with m00n that respect for different modes of transport is a function of the number of vehicles, and that there probably isn't any kind of positive action that could communicate this to a driver on the road.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

The rule you speak of does not apply to the bike lane. I am not allowed to ride, say, along the broken white line down the middle of the Mystic Valley Parkway, but I *am* allowed to do that with the bike lane.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

So again, you are basically saying you're somehow above the law.

I have nothing further to say to you, since you're clearly convinced you're too good to have to obey the same laws as everyone else.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

The bike lane IS a special lane designed for bikes. Thus it is obviously going to be one of the few places on the road where there are special rules that apply to bikes and NOT cars. It is designed this way for the safety and comfort of the bicyclists ONLY. This does not mean that a bicyclist who obeys these special bike rules is "above the law." Instead it means they are following the rules for bicycles. What's wrong with that exactly? What would be the point of a bike lane if cars were allowed to drive in it?

[erikgarrison.livejournal.com]

The law is different for different modes of transport because they are intensely different species. I don't think there is anything unjust about this. If bicycles had the same performance, size, safety, and pollution aspects as cars then it would make sense to have a completely uniform vehicle law, but they aren't and thus there are slight, but significant differences intended to improve safety, support, and clarify what is and should be understood by all to be pro-social behavior.