[SDCBC] Pet peeve: cyclists have "no choice" but to be unsafe/crazy

[Serge Issakov]

On Feb 19, 2008 9:57 PM, <JonIsaacs at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 2/19/08 8:48:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> danettehoffert at gmail.com writes:
>
> There are classes (which I have taken) and there is reality.  Better/safer
> biking routes is one of the solutions.  Is that not the purpose of the
> upcoming meetings?  There are rights of bicyclists as stated in various
> laws, but try explaining that to a hostile person in a metal cage who has
> been sitting on the 5 South for 3 hours and now wants a shortcut.
>
> Danette
>
>
> --------
>
> I find the biggest problem is not the motorists but myself.  Taking the
> lane when confident is a lot different than taking it when afraid.
>
> Jon
>

Indeed.  Road rage happens, to be sure.  But it's the behavior leading up to
the incident that is of most interest.  Yes, I regularly take the lane even
when there is a bike lane, but not in a manner that is oblivious to how that
affects motorists.  If there is faster traffic approaching behind me and I
have a good reason to not move aside into the bike lane, then I don't just
blindly proceed, I do something to let them know I know they are there.
Whether we like it or not, the expectation that we will get out of the way
is there, especially if a bike lane is present.  I'm convinced this is much
less about being on a bike and much more about slow traffic being somewhere
where it's not expected to be (driving a 65 VW van in the fast lane on the
freeway at 50 mph will also generate road rage).  A slow/stop arm signal, a
left arm turn signal (if I'm out of the bike lane in order to start moving
left for a left turn up ahead, or to pass someone, etc.) a glance back (with
a smile and a nod), or even a slight lateral adjustment to the left could be
all that it takes to diffuse a potential road rage situation before it
happens.  This comes out naturally, but yes, it requires situational
awareness (including rearward situational awareness), confidence, and seeing
traffic as the socially interactive environment that it is.

Danette shares a story about a group of cyclists who were somehow
systematically ridden into a ditch by a plumber, and the police officer
sided with the plumber, apparently saying they should have been in the bike
lane.  Why were they not in the bike lane in the first place?  Doesn't this
illustrate one problem with bike lanes - that it puts the onus on the
cyclist to justify being outside of it?  What lead up to the incident?  Were
they not aware that the plumber was behind them?  Did they acknowledge him
in any way?  Again, was there a good reason for them to not move into the
bike lane to let him pass?  What was the reason?  Was it explained to the
officer, and, if so, and why didn't he agree?  And how exactly were these
cyclists ridden off the road into a ditch?

As to the other incident, that was pure assault and battery.  People like
that should be in jail, but they are very rare compared to the
run-of-the-mill guy who honks, or yells "get in the bike lane".  Those are
the ones I'm talking about diffusing.  By the way, any time anyone yells
"get in the bike lane", that just confirms how bike lanes are commonly seen
as "that place off to the side where bicyclists belong".  Advocating for
facilities that ghettoize cyclists like that hardly seems like advocacy for
cyclists to me.

By the way, the only time I ever had anything thrown at me was an egg, which
hit me in the calf, while I was riding in the bike lane on Torrey Pines Rd
on a Friday night.

Serge









-- 
NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by
any organization in which I am involved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080220/3be42891/attachment-0001.html