Linda Need weighs in now, trying to be the voice of reason, but she misses in oh-so-many ways.
Motorists want bikers on the bike paths, and bikers want motorists to toodle behind them while they pedal at various speeds up the road.
See, what motorists want is simple - bikes on bike paths, but what cyclists want is to inconvenience drivers.
Motorists and cyclists both break the law; unfortunately it's the motorist who will go to jail if the two collide.
Oh, if only she knew how untrue that was. Unless the motorist was drunk or left the scene (and was caught) they will almost surely do no time - even in the rare event that they are found at fault - and might not even have to show up in court. Besides, is going to jail really worse than dying. Why wouldn't she say "unfortunately it's the cyclist who will go to the hospital or morgue if the two collide?"
No wonder motorists are unnerved driving around cyclists.
Yes, that's been my experience.
When cyclists yell obscenities and spit on motorists (both have happened to my family), it just inflames the situation. Neither side has been polite about this.
Well then, why are you focused only on the cyclists? Has someone in your family been run off the road by a cyclist? Because I've had a driver do that to me. It inflamed both the situation and my knee.
As a motorist who doesn't have the privilege of having time to cycle,
Cyclists are so privileged. You know how she could free up some time? Start biking more. Oh wait...
I think the cyclists should be on the bike paths, as it is much easier for bikes to dodge pedestrians than cars to dodge cyclists.
But what about when there are no bike paths? Or people want to ride fast? And is it really easier? Maybe drivers should slow down instead of trying to "dodge" cyclists.
However, I think the only permanent solution is to put in bike lanes
Hooray! We agree,,,
and make cyclists pass a "driving" test and get licensed to ensure that they all know that they must follow the same rules as cars when they are on the road.
...and the moment is over.
Until that happens, we will continue to have frustrated motorists and angry cyclists.
And see, drivers are frustrated - which is a reasonable, thoughtful reaction, while cyclists are angry, which is emotional and scary.
When cyclists yell obscenities and spit on motorists (both have happened to my family), it just inflames the situation. Neither side has been polite about this.
I want to comment on this because you hear stuff like this a lot. I've been driving for almost 30 years, and I've never had a cyclist spit at me or yell cyclists. My experience is a driver -- and a cyclist -- is that cyclists leave motorists alone unless motorists do something egregious.
If you find yourself often assailed by cyclists, either you drive like Mr. Magoo, or you have a chip on your shoulder.
Posted by: Contrarian | August 25, 2011 at 08:49 AM
Oops, "yell cyclists" should just be "yell."
Posted by: Contrarian | August 25, 2011 at 08:49 AM
It's the classic issue of mistaking one's perspective for objective truth. If the only time you ever get on a bike, your top speed is 8 mph, then thinking bikes can operate safely on multi-use paths is logical. If you are a motorist frustrated at having to share the road, then all motorists must be frustrated (and by extension, those causing the frustration are at fault). If you as a motorist have to have a license to operate your vehicle of choice, then all vehicle users must.
People like Ms. Need are not malicious. They're your neighbors, and they need to be communicated with in a way that engages respectfully but forcefully, and that disentanges the muddy logic here (inconvenience to motorists is completely unrelated to lawbreaking, and licensing cyclists is an expensive and unworkable solution in search of a problem).
Posted by: Crickey7 | August 25, 2011 at 09:11 AM
...and make cyclists pass a "driving" test and get licensed to ensure that they all know that they must follow the same rules as cars when they are on the road.
Yeah...because it works so well for motorists.
All I can say is, thank Baal for peak oil. The end of cheap, easy motoring can't come soon enough for delusional people such as Ms. Need.
Crickey7, people like Ms. Need are not malicious...until they get behind two rolling tons of armor and become frustrated by, well, anything.
Posted by: Blue-eyed Devil | August 25, 2011 at 10:31 AM
It's your fault for making motorists toodle. You know how hard that is to get out of velour?
Posted by: Crickey7 | August 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Crickey - I think your is a really nice bit of elaboration on the notion of perspective. We frequently point to 'windshield perspective' as one of the reasons that drivers can't seem to identify (much less empathize or even sympathize) with those of us on two wheels.
But a catch-all 'windshield perspective' may not be enough. There are plenty of motorists who do ride and plenty (thankfully) who don't get pissed at cyclists.
What's worse is that often they're more than just your neighbors...I imagine we all have family members or coworkers who disparage cyclists now and then. I, for one, struggle at communicating with them in a convincing manner.
But back to Ms Need... toodle ? WTF? It's not even the right choice of word.
Really funny if you look it up on Urban Dictionary, though: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=toodle
Posted by: Bilsko | August 25, 2011 at 01:11 PM
@Bilsko, on that link you posted, definition number 2 reads:
2. toodle 23 up, 9 down
to ride a bike about in a casual and fun way
the gang of us went for a toodle
Posted by: Blue-eyed Devil | August 25, 2011 at 01:41 PM
No, it's the right word. See definition 3.
Posted by: Crickey7 | August 25, 2011 at 03:03 PM
@ Blue-Eyed
...Exactly. Definition # 2 reads:
to ride a bike about...
not toodle a car.
Posted by: Bilsko | August 26, 2011 at 08:03 AM