how do you change attitudes about cycling? (top, best, ride)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I guess it's like I said earlier, if you want to mix it with the traffic then best you start paying for the privilege like the rest of us motorists do. Introduce registrations requiring plates to be displayed and pay for it, pay to attend a class for bike riding on the roadway, and if you fail to pass, pay to do it again, pay to get a license which covers the bike which has to be renewed, and pay for some form of insurance. If you want 'equal rights' ~ then pay for them like the rest of us motorists do!
Well I guess it's like I said earlier, if you want to mix it with the traffic then best you start paying for the privilege like the rest of us motorists do. Introduce registrations requiring plates to be displayed and pay for it, pay to attend a class for bike riding on the roadway, and if you fail to pass, pay to do it again, pay to get a license which covers the bike which has to be renewed, and pay for some form of insurance. If you want 'equal rights' ~ then pay for them like the rest of us motorists do!
I've seen this assertion a few times on here. Yet when asked if all this were implemented, would the person change their attitude and be all right with cyclists on the road, they reply, "No, not really."
Well I guess it's like I said earlier, if you want to mix it with the traffic then best you start paying for the privilege like the rest of us motorists do. Introduce registrations requiring plates to be displayed and pay for it, pay to attend a class for bike riding on the roadway, and if you fail to pass, pay to do it again, pay to get a license which covers the bike which has to be renewed, and pay for some form of insurance. If you want 'equal rights' ~ then pay for them like the rest of us motorists do!
the problem with licenses is you would create a huge problem for kids who want to bike etc. You could try to get around that by not requiring licenses for biking on the sidewalk or in local cul de sac type streets. But then you would incent people to ride on sidewalks, which in fact is more dangerous than riding in the street.
The other problem is that any license plate large enough to have a visible number simply won't work with many bikes.
Thats why no jurisdiction in the world, that I know of, has adopted such a thing. Its mainly brought up by drivers who just want fewer cyclists around.
As for classes, Im all for more cyclists taking safety classes - but our experience with motorists shows that classes and licensing is quite compatible with widespread law breaking.
I've seen this assertion a few times on here. Yet when asked if all this were implemented, would the person change their attitude and be all right with cyclists on the road, they reply, "No, not really."
This a very excellent point as even after all this there is still no change to the roads to accommodate cycling infrastructure. Clearly marked bike lanes, perhaps even green colored like they do in Portland, OR and other "bike" progressive cities, traffic signs indicating cyclists ahead, perhaps even buffered bicycle lanes, these are the items that would really help motorists and cyclists to enjoy a safer ride on the road. When substandard road conditions, narrow bike lanes, or no shoulder forces cyclists out onto the road, this upsets the motorists (who as mentioned before, have plenty of other distractions and dangerous stuff to deal with) and exacerbates the already existent contention between motorists and cyclists. Granted there are exceptions like the group of cyclists that take up an entire road when it is not necessary to do so or motorists who throw items at cyclists, run them off the road intentionally, or try to door them (been on the cyclist end of all the above) but for the normal getting from point A to point B motorists and cyclists it certainly would be nice to have some decent infrastructure laid out that says "Hey we realize that cyclists need to feel safe on a road that is already laden with enough frustrations for motorists".
Back to the point made by Ino, I would gladly pay for the privilege to use the same roads as motorists, but only if the department of transportation did something with the roads to accommodate cyclists. If those roads were left in the same "unacceptable for safe cycling" condition then I would not want to be on that road. You motorists out there can identify with that one, you pay taxes, service charges, and usage fees for access to roads and how many times have you encountered a situation with a street/road that is unacceptable or dangerous and even after many town meetings and awareness generating, observe that the street/road is in the same bad condition a year or two later? Imagine that feeling and that is how cyclists feel about some of the roads they have to take to commute to work.
Motorists, wouldn't you rather see clearly marked green bicycle lanes that were buffered (a 3-4 foot gap between car lanes and the bicycle lane) with plenty of traffic signs indicating cyclist traffic? Wow, if motorists could get vocal and put their vote in with the city arguing for safer infrastructure for cyclists because the current situation is creating too many additional hazards for motorists, imagine what sort of results might be achieved. Motorists would be doing themselves a great favor by keeping cyclists out of normal traffic lanes (for the most part - excluding intersections) and at the same time rendering a great service to cyclists. Now that would be a win-win.
They just add to an already over congested and bad situation.
cyclists take up less room than the equivalent number of automobiles - if cyclists were to all switch to cars they would increase congestion.
I believe you are from Australia, which seems to even exceed the USA in hostility to cyclists. Somehow in certain parts of europe, like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, large scale biking in cities seems to work pretty well.
here in the USA we are making great strides in learning to share the road, add good bike infrastructure, etc. Esp in places like Portland, Minneapolis, and Washington DC. Too bad its not working out in Australia.
Well I guess it's like I said earlier, if you want to mix it with the traffic then best you start paying for the privilege like the rest of us motorists do. Introduce registrations requiring plates to be displayed and pay for it, pay to attend a class for bike riding on the roadway, and if you fail to pass, pay to do it again, pay to get a license which covers the bike which has to be renewed, and pay for some form of insurance. If you want 'equal rights' ~ then pay for them like the rest of us motorists do!
Trying to make a point but being a universe away from the actual facts of the matter is not flattering to you.
The road system is one of the biggest welfare sucks in the history of our country. You guys are using way more than you put in. Attend your county's budget meeting next year if you might want to educate yourself in these matters. Most bicycle commuters have cars that they are paying for but not using. Most pay city, state and property taxes. Will you send me a refund on my property taxes that are alloted to road use and developer give-a-ways??
Didnt think so.
You people have to start paying your share. We are tired of the free ride you get from us.
I don't believe cyclists should have rego's or anything else I said before, it's a complete absurdity, but cyclists in the city simply encourage/create more hazards for the motorist.
It may sound like I'm anti cyclist, but this is not the case, everyone is entitled to use a roadway, but from my experience cyclists in general have this mentality, not dissimilar to joggers, that they have as much right to be there as the motorist does. This of course may be true, but they fail to understand that the infrastructure for cyclists is just not there and they are one more hazard the motorist has to contend with. Most don't wear clothing appropriate for visibility. Perhaps it should be mandatory to wear those reflective vests every time they get on that bike. To most motorists, and I repeat ~ *most* motorists ~ vehicles are far more visible than a cyclist and whom can be lost to sight between vehicles in traffic.
Roadways built when Adam was a boy simply never considered the increase in vehicular traffic over successive decades, hence the overcrowding on the roadways by vehicles, and then they toss cyclists into that mix.
Before encouraging cyclists to use roadways, those roadways need to be suitable to allow for the cyclist and this is not the case today. Cyclists are forced to mix it with the vehicular traffic and I find that rather dangerous and stupid, hence the attitude from some/most motorists.
When I was teaching one of our daughters to drive we had a jogger run a red pedestrian light and placed his hand on the bonnet of the car forcing her to stop. It's not too difficult to imagine a car running into the back of her car because she had to stop suddenly...just after accelerating to move with the traffic. I told her to ignore the jogger and to flatten the gas pedal and run him over. I've seen equal idiotic behaviour from cyclists, so as stated before, is it any wonder some motorists have an attitude towards joggers and cyclists?
I spoke with a Japanese tourist travelling Australia when I was doing overnight freight a couple years back, and two days later I had to return the remains of his bike because he was killed on the open highway. I would say he failed to allow for the draft when road trains etc pass and this is probly why he was killed. Many cyclists just don't understand the dynamics involved. they consider themselves to be bullet proof.
Who is automatically going to be blamed in an accident? Like truck drivers the vehicle driver will always get the finger pointed at them.
If one wishes to ride a bike then they had better suit up for visibility and be alert and aware they are mixing it with far larger vehicles than some piddly frame with two wheels attached, and show the courtesy required for all concerned, but mainly for their own safety and well being, wether they have a right to be there or not. If push comes to shove and I have to take evasive action on the road I certainly ain't going to consider a cyclist, I was forced to do the same when I was semi driving on the highway. If I am forced to make a choice between me getting home and the cyclist getting home, it's going to be me that gets home.
Perhaps if all you bike riders were to take the car instead, and clog up the roadways even more, the local councils or authorities may look more seriously at providing better and more suitable facilities for bike riders? At the moment all they have done is chuck cyclists straight into that rather large mixing pot and are hoping for the best.
If nobody else has experienced any of the above, and/or more, then I can understand why some people are sinking the boots into me.
Well I guess it's like I said earlier, if you want to mix it with the traffic then best you start paying for the privilege like the rest of us motorists do. Introduce registrations requiring plates to be displayed and pay for it, pay to attend a class for bike riding on the roadway, and if you fail to pass, pay to do it again, pay to get a license which covers the bike which has to be renewed, and pay for some form of insurance. If you want 'equal rights' ~ then pay for them like the rest of us motorists do!
I put several hundred miles per month on this:
... and usually less than a hundred a month on this, unless I'm going on a road trip to SF, Vegas, or San Diego:
I pay for registration every year; pay for a driver's license renewal every few years; paid thousands in sales tax on this car when I bought it; pay for gas taxes that go, in part, to maintain public roads; pay income and sales tax which also, in part, go to maintain roads; and also shell out for insurance, as is legally mandated.
In a nutshell, I, like many if not most adult cyclists in the US, also own a car and already have a driver's license and have already been vetted by the state for operating a vehicle on a public road: I have paid like the rest of us motorists do!!
I don't believe cyclists should have rego's or anything else I said before, it's a complete absurdity, but cyclists in the city simply encourage/create more hazards for the motorist.
It may sound like I'm anti cyclist, but this is not the case, everyone is entitled to use a roadway, but from my experience cyclists in general have this mentality, not dissimilar to joggers, that they have as much right to be there as the motorist does. This of course may be true, but they fail to understand that the infrastructure for cyclists is just not there and they are one more hazard the motorist has to contend with. Most don't wear clothing appropriate for visibility. Perhaps it should be mandatory to wear those reflective vests every time they get on that bike. To most motorists, and I repeat ~ *most* motorists ~ vehicles are far more visible than a cyclist and whom can be lost to sight between vehicles in traffic.
By this mentality, though, if cyclists are indeed following their rights on a roadway but are simply "hazards" to motorists, then a pedestrian who is crossing legally in a crosswalk is nothing more than a "hazard" to a motorist.
Both are obeying laws and using their rights, but their doing so requires a motorist to stop or move a few feet over to the left. There is no reason that this should be a "hazard," or even an inconvenience, any more so than having to brake for the motorist in front of you: they are the rules of the road.
I'll also add that in my state, and most others, a bike used on a roadway must have a front and rear light, and the vast bulk of cyclists have both - a guy I used to work with got pulled over and ticketed riding a bike without a headlight at night.
Quote:
Roadways built when Adam was a boy simply never considered the increase in vehicular traffic over successive decades, hence the overcrowding on the roadways by vehicles, and then they toss cyclists into that mix.
Before encouraging cyclists to use roadways, those roadways need to be suitable to allow for the cyclist and this is not the case today. Cyclists are forced to mix it with the vehicular traffic and I find that rather dangerous and stupid, hence the attitude from some/most motorists.
I agree that there should be more infrastructure for cyclists; however, there's not. And quite often, when a city decides to invest in infrastructure for cyclists, a group of vocal people who aren't really motorists so much as anti-cycle usually pipe up about how it's a financial waste and pandering to special interests, and do everything they can to prevent said infrastructure from being laid down.
[quot]When I was teaching one of our daughters to drive we had a jogger run a red pedestrian light and placed his hand on the bonnet of the car forcing her to stop. It's not too difficult to imagine a car running into the back of her car because she had to stop suddenly...just after accelerating to move with the traffic. I told her to ignore the jogger and to flatten the gas pedal and run him over.[/quote]
I'll certainly give you that the jogger was a moron and if he got hit it'd be his fault, in this situation.
This said, what arrogant and poor advice to give your daughter! What the hell, man?? First of all, your advice is to "flatten the gas pedal," i.e., speed up to hit him? That's just sick! You have the basic human quotient, i.e. that the jogger, whether or not he's in the wrong, is still a human being who will either get maimed or killed by your daughter's action. You also have the legal quotient, in that your daughter could, indeed, be charged with vehicular manslaughter if it was proven that she sped up to hit the guy. She's in a situation in which she has a decision to do one of three things:
1. Hit the gas pedal and get potentially rear-ended by another vehicle
2. Not do anything and run the guy down
3. Maliciously accelerate and run the guy down
One of these things will not only absolve her of any legal consequence as the accident would either be on the jogger who ran into the street or the motorist who failed to stop in time due to excessive speed, inattention, or driving at an unsafe distance, but it would also absolve her of the psychological and emotional effects of having severely injured and possibly killed someone, and the ensuing legal issues it'd bring on her.
The other two would bring on those psychological effects; one of them would surely bring on the legal consequences and there would certainly be a possibility that she's still have to face these with the others.
Quote:
I've seen equal idiotic behaviour from cyclists, so as stated before, is it any wonder some motorists have an attitude towards joggers and cyclists?
But, look over your comments in which you admit that you advocate your daughter speeding up and hitting a pedestrian. Thankfully, most motorists don't share this mentality, even if they're just tough-talking for the sake of it... but, there are people out there like you, and that's one of the big reasons that riding a bike is dangerous for cyclists, and for other motorists. Hell, it's part of the reason that crossing the street can be dangerous...
Quote:
I spoke with a Japanese tourist travelling Australia when I was doing overnight freight a couple years back, and two days later I had to return the remains of his bike because he was killed on the open highway. I would say he failed to allow for the draft when road trains etc pass and this is probly why he was killed. Many cyclists just don't understand the dynamics involved. they consider themselves to be bullet proof.
Who is automatically going to be blamed in an accident? Like truck drivers the vehicle driver will always get the finger pointed at them.
You say this, and then advocate your daughter choosing to put herself in a situation in which by your own words, she will now have the finger pointed at her.
FWIW, in the cycling community, the general consensus is the opposite: the cyclist is usually blamed, and usually because of the assumptions that you state in regards to, for instance, cyclists assuming that they are "bulletproof" and riding recklessly.
Anecdotally, I have a friend who was t-boned by a girl in a Jetta, and while he was in the hospital, her insurance company announced that they were suing him for damages to her car, and although the police report cited that she was at fault, they threatened litigation.
I have another friend who was hit and knocked onto the hood of a car by an inattentive motorist making a right at a corner without a light. The cop who responded had a chip on his shoulder and wrote that it was my friend's fault even though he was going straight on the road and had the right of way, had ample lights, etc. It became a court battle.
Quote:
If one wishes to ride a bike then they had better suit up for visibility and be alert and aware they are mixing it with far larger vehicles than some piddly frame with two wheels attached, and show the courtesy required for all concerned, but mainly for their own safety and well being, wether they have a right to be there or not. If push comes to shove and I have to take evasive action on the road I certainly ain't going to consider a cyclist, I was forced to do the same when I was semi driving on the highway. If I am forced to make a choice between me getting home and the cyclist getting home, it's going to be me that gets home.
But your attitude indicates that you're much more apt to just hit them regardless of whether you'd have slam hard on your brakes and get nailed from behind, or just sideswipe someone. I'd much rather get rear-ended and let the car absorb the impact, most likely still getting home; or, have to get a new mirror and some bodywork; than let someone die.
Quote:
Perhaps if all you bike riders were to take the car instead, and clog up the roadways even more, the local councils or authorities may look more seriously at providing better and more suitable facilities for bike riders? At the moment all they have done is chuck cyclists straight into that rather large mixing pot and are hoping for the best.
If nobody else has experienced any of the above, and/or more, then I can understand why some people are sinking the boots into me.
But I have been on the receiving end of moron cyclists when driving my car. I've been on the receiving end of moron motorists who decide to take out their frustrations at me... and then, I've also had to take someone's life before and wouldn't wish that burden on anyone who didn't have to do it. Punitive, tough-guy talk and posturing is fine if you're drinking at a bar with some bros, but if it actually becomes your mantra, then it's more or less asking for problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
