Re: Folk Transportation [was Re: Greedy, arrogant bike shop owner]

03-31-2004, 06:36 PM

R15757 wrote:

> It's the lane-takers who are doing the industrial-strength annoying out there.
> If it didn't annoy, they would quickly forget about doing it.

Absolute bull****.

First, most of the time I need to take a lane, it annoys nobody. They
can clearly see why I'm doing what I'm doing. I do it not to annoy, but
to make sure that the occasional bad driver doesn't attempt a stupidly
unsafe passing maneuver.

Second, if the lane _is_ so narrow that my life would be endangered by a
passing car, what am I supposed to do _instead_ of taking the lane?
Should I get off the bike and genuflect as the motorist drives by? Or
should I cheerily risk my life to save him a few seconds of travel time?

Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have
bad judgement or poor thinking skills.

Does it annoy you?

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

03-31-2004, 10:59 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

<< Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have bad
judgement or poor thinking skills.>>

Well, maybe the way you do it, I haven't seen you ride.

But almost every day I see people who clearly fancy themselves vehicular
cyclists who resort to lane-taking far too quickly, and for far too long. I
know this because I am able to ride the same exact streets not only faster but
without significantly disrupting motor traffic. Their technique leaves
something to be desired and is a bit of a mystery to me. I think that
improvements in handling skills and experience, the lack of which makes any
busy road seem more narrow than it really is, and more intensive route finding
will be the best medicine for these misguided souls.

Lane taking is often necessary, it's true, but really only in brief flashes and
moments here and there, one or two cars at a time, unless something goes
horribly wrong. That's not to say I don't ride in the lane, I always ride way
way out in the middle of the street unless traffic is closing from behind, but
this is not "lane taking." When you're moving the same speed as motors or when
there are none around you can take all the lane you want for as long as you
want. But it is my firm belief that exagerrated lane-taking in front of faster
vehicles is needed far less often than one might think, and the safety benefits
it brings are usually marginal enough to be canceled by the sheer hassle of the
endeavor.

<<Does it annoy you? >>

When I see a beginner using this crutch technique to get down a busy street,
no. It's a little _sad_, but not annoying to me personally.

When I see an old veteran doing the defiant exagerrated lane taking thing, with
a look on their face like "I dare you to honk at me", and doing it where I know
for a fact no clear necessity exists, yes it annoys me. Especially when there
is an empty street that is just as fast (and without lights) one block to the
east or west. I wish these bastards would just put their bikes in the garage
and give it up already. These guys are transportational cycling's biggest PR
problem. Every time they go for a ride, they give the impression that riding in
traffic is all about conflict, anger, and general difficulty. (It's not.)

Every time one of these guys rides their bike to or from work it makes it more
difficult for me to ride those same streets.

Little Napoleonic thing going on there perhaps. Cyclists are so used to getting
pushed around at intersections, maybe they find themselves with the opportunity
to control a lane and the drivers in it, they reflexively lower the boom.
Abused children tend to abuse their children.

Robert

03-31-2004, 10:59 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

<< Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have bad
judgement or poor thinking skills.>>

Well, maybe the way you do it, I haven't seen you ride.

But almost every day I see people who clearly fancy themselves vehicular
cyclists who resort to lane-taking far too quickly, and for far too long. I
know this because I am able to ride the same exact streets not only faster but
without significantly disrupting motor traffic. Their technique leaves
something to be desired and is a bit of a mystery to me. I think that
improvements in handling skills and experience, the lack of which makes any
busy road seem more narrow than it really is, and more intensive route finding
will be the best medicine for these misguided souls.

Lane taking is often necessary, it's true, but really only in brief flashes and
moments here and there, one or two cars at a time, unless something goes
horribly wrong. That's not to say I don't ride in the lane, I always ride way
way out in the middle of the street unless traffic is closing from behind, but
this is not "lane taking." When you're moving the same speed as motors or when
there are none around you can take all the lane you want for as long as you
want. But it is my firm belief that exagerrated lane-taking in front of faster
vehicles is needed far less often than one might think, and the safety benefits
it brings are usually marginal enough to be canceled by the sheer hassle of the
endeavor.

<<Does it annoy you? >>

When I see a beginner using this crutch technique to get down a busy street,
no. It's a little _sad_, but not annoying to me personally.

When I see an old veteran doing the defiant exagerrated lane taking thing, with
a look on their face like "I dare you to honk at me", and doing it where I know
for a fact no clear necessity exists, yes it annoys me. Especially when there
is an empty street that is just as fast (and without lights) one block to the
east or west. I wish these bastards would just put their bikes in the garage
and give it up already. These guys are transportational cycling's biggest PR
problem. Every time they go for a ride, they give the impression that riding in
traffic is all about conflict, anger, and general difficulty. (It's not.)

Every time one of these guys rides their bike to or from work it makes it more
difficult for me to ride those same streets.

Little Napoleonic thing going on there perhaps. Cyclists are so used to getting
pushed around at intersections, maybe they find themselves with the opportunity
to control a lane and the drivers in it, they reflexively lower the boom.
Abused children tend to abuse their children.

Robert

03-31-2004, 10:59 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

<< Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have bad
judgement or poor thinking skills.>>

Well, maybe the way you do it, I haven't seen you ride.

But almost every day I see people who clearly fancy themselves vehicular
cyclists who resort to lane-taking far too quickly, and for far too long. I
know this because I am able to ride the same exact streets not only faster but
without significantly disrupting motor traffic. Their technique leaves
something to be desired and is a bit of a mystery to me. I think that
improvements in handling skills and experience, the lack of which makes any
busy road seem more narrow than it really is, and more intensive route finding
will be the best medicine for these misguided souls.

Lane taking is often necessary, it's true, but really only in brief flashes and
moments here and there, one or two cars at a time, unless something goes
horribly wrong. That's not to say I don't ride in the lane, I always ride way
way out in the middle of the street unless traffic is closing from behind, but
this is not "lane taking." When you're moving the same speed as motors or when
there are none around you can take all the lane you want for as long as you
want. But it is my firm belief that exagerrated lane-taking in front of faster
vehicles is needed far less often than one might think, and the safety benefits
it brings are usually marginal enough to be canceled by the sheer hassle of the
endeavor.

<<Does it annoy you? >>

When I see a beginner using this crutch technique to get down a busy street,
no. It's a little _sad_, but not annoying to me personally.

When I see an old veteran doing the defiant exagerrated lane taking thing, with
a look on their face like "I dare you to honk at me", and doing it where I know
for a fact no clear necessity exists, yes it annoys me. Especially when there
is an empty street that is just as fast (and without lights) one block to the
east or west. I wish these bastards would just put their bikes in the garage
and give it up already. These guys are transportational cycling's biggest PR
problem. Every time they go for a ride, they give the impression that riding in
traffic is all about conflict, anger, and general difficulty. (It's not.)

Every time one of these guys rides their bike to or from work it makes it more
difficult for me to ride those same streets.

Little Napoleonic thing going on there perhaps. Cyclists are so used to getting
pushed around at intersections, maybe they find themselves with the opportunity
to control a lane and the drivers in it, they reflexively lower the boom.
Abused children tend to abuse their children.

Robert

04-01-2004, 06:41 PM

R15757 wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> << Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
> choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have bad
> judgement or poor thinking skills.>>
>
> Well, maybe the way you do it, I haven't seen you ride.
>
> But almost every day I see people who clearly fancy themselves vehicular
> cyclists who resort to lane-taking far too quickly, and for far too long. I
> know this because I am able to ride the same exact streets not only faster but
> without significantly disrupting motor traffic.... These guys are transportational cycling's biggest PR
> problem. Every time they go for a ride, they give the impression that riding in
> traffic is all about conflict, anger, and general difficulty. (It's not.)
>
> Every time one of these guys rides their bike to or from work it makes it more
> difficult for me to ride those same streets.
>
> Little Napoleonic thing going on there perhaps.

It's certainly true that some people are comfortable being passed
closely; others are not.

FWIW, I have a friend who's ridden with John Forester. My friend
reported that at times he'd have taken the lane, Forester would share it.

But in my view, the decision on taking the lane has to be up to the
cyclist. The cyclist has a right to safe passage on the road, and he's
got to judge for himself what's safe.

I think the situation is analogous to an elderly driver at a stop sign,
waiting to pull out into a busy four lane. The impatient teen or
20-something behind her may say "Dammit, you could have made it there!"
and begin blaring his horn. But the punk isn't the one who's risking an
accident, and the punk isn't the one who knows the limitations of skill,
sight, reflexes, etc. Even if the punk is delayed for a full (horrors!)
30 seconds, the elderly driver has a right to wait until it's safe for
_her_.

Likewise, you or a slightly delayed driver may say "Dammit, there's room
to ride to the right!" But you aren't the one risking the accident, and
there may be potholes, slippery spots, wheel-trap grates, or just
leftover nervousness from a dangerously close pass at that spot two days
ago.

Some cylists may abuse lane taking, I suppose, but in my experience
that's rare.

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

04-01-2004, 06:41 PM

R15757 wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> << Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
> choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have bad
> judgement or poor thinking skills.>>
>
> Well, maybe the way you do it, I haven't seen you ride.
>
> But almost every day I see people who clearly fancy themselves vehicular
> cyclists who resort to lane-taking far too quickly, and for far too long. I
> know this because I am able to ride the same exact streets not only faster but
> without significantly disrupting motor traffic.... These guys are transportational cycling's biggest PR
> problem. Every time they go for a ride, they give the impression that riding in
> traffic is all about conflict, anger, and general difficulty. (It's not.)
>
> Every time one of these guys rides their bike to or from work it makes it more
> difficult for me to ride those same streets.
>
> Little Napoleonic thing going on there perhaps.

It's certainly true that some people are comfortable being passed
closely; others are not.

FWIW, I have a friend who's ridden with John Forester. My friend
reported that at times he'd have taken the lane, Forester would share it.

But in my view, the decision on taking the lane has to be up to the
cyclist. The cyclist has a right to safe passage on the road, and he's
got to judge for himself what's safe.

I think the situation is analogous to an elderly driver at a stop sign,
waiting to pull out into a busy four lane. The impatient teen or
20-something behind her may say "Dammit, you could have made it there!"
and begin blaring his horn. But the punk isn't the one who's risking an
accident, and the punk isn't the one who knows the limitations of skill,
sight, reflexes, etc. Even if the punk is delayed for a full (horrors!)
30 seconds, the elderly driver has a right to wait until it's safe for
_her_.

Likewise, you or a slightly delayed driver may say "Dammit, there's room
to ride to the right!" But you aren't the one risking the accident, and
there may be potholes, slippery spots, wheel-trap grates, or just
leftover nervousness from a dangerously close pass at that spot two days
ago.

Some cylists may abuse lane taking, I suppose, but in my experience
that's rare.

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

04-01-2004, 06:41 PM

R15757 wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> << Taking a lane when necessary is legal, practical, and the only real
> choice. And it works. The only people it annoys are people who have bad
> judgement or poor thinking skills.>>
>
> Well, maybe the way you do it, I haven't seen you ride.
>
> But almost every day I see people who clearly fancy themselves vehicular
> cyclists who resort to lane-taking far too quickly, and for far too long. I
> know this because I am able to ride the same exact streets not only faster but
> without significantly disrupting motor traffic.... These guys are transportational cycling's biggest PR
> problem. Every time they go for a ride, they give the impression that riding in
> traffic is all about conflict, anger, and general difficulty. (It's not.)
>
> Every time one of these guys rides their bike to or from work it makes it more
> difficult for me to ride those same streets.
>
> Little Napoleonic thing going on there perhaps.

It's certainly true that some people are comfortable being passed
closely; others are not.

FWIW, I have a friend who's ridden with John Forester. My friend
reported that at times he'd have taken the lane, Forester would share it.

But in my view, the decision on taking the lane has to be up to the
cyclist. The cyclist has a right to safe passage on the road, and he's
got to judge for himself what's safe.

I think the situation is analogous to an elderly driver at a stop sign,
waiting to pull out into a busy four lane. The impatient teen or
20-something behind her may say "Dammit, you could have made it there!"
and begin blaring his horn. But the punk isn't the one who's risking an
accident, and the punk isn't the one who knows the limitations of skill,
sight, reflexes, etc. Even if the punk is delayed for a full (horrors!)
30 seconds, the elderly driver has a right to wait until it's safe for
_her_.

Likewise, you or a slightly delayed driver may say "Dammit, there's room
to ride to the right!" But you aren't the one risking the accident, and
there may be potholes, slippery spots, wheel-trap grates, or just
leftover nervousness from a dangerously close pass at that spot two days
ago.

Some cylists may abuse lane taking, I suppose, but in my experience
that's rare.

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

04-01-2004, 06:45 PM

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:41:02 -0500, "frkrygow"
<"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>But in my view, the decision on taking the lane has to be up to the
>cyclist. The cyclist has a right to safe passage on the road, and he's
>got to judge for himself what's safe.
>
>I think the situation is analogous to an elderly driver at a stop sign,
>waiting to pull out into a busy four lane. The impatient teen or
>20-something behind her may say "Dammit, you could have made it there!"
>and begin blaring his horn. But the punk isn't the one who's risking an
>accident, and the punk isn't the one who knows the limitations of skill,
>sight, reflexes, etc. Even if the punk is delayed for a full (horrors!)
>30 seconds, the elderly driver has a right to wait until it's safe for
>_her_.

My Dad, who despite his fear of riding in traffic is a very wise
person, always says this when I'm out driving with him: "Don't mind
their honking and flashing lights. *they* aren't the ones who are
going to get into the wreck--*you* are. It's *your* life you're
risking, so take all the time you need to be safe"

>
>Likewise, you or a slightly delayed driver may say "Dammit, there's room
>to ride to the right!" But you aren't the one risking the accident, and
>there may be potholes, slippery spots, wheel-trap grates, or just
>leftover nervousness from a dangerously close pass at that spot two days
>ago.

The Virginia Driver's Handbook reminds drivers of this, but with
respect to motorcyclists--lane positioning will vary according to
conditions and surface, which affect *them* (motorcyclists) more than
cars. I wish they'd say the same thing about bicycles--since it's
even more true for us!

>
>Some cylists may abuse lane taking, I suppose, but in my experience
>that's rare.

More common are cyclists who are too easily bullied into the gutter,
thereby getting themselves into a world of trouble: parking lanes,
drains, doors, trash....

But then, they decide that the roadway's for cars and ride on the
sidewalk instead, and get crunched by cars at driveways and
intersections (one such crash--very bad one--on my street this year:
cyclist riding counterflow on the sidewalk at dusk, no lights
naturally, and struck by motorist turning left onto fairly busy
street. )

-Luigi

04-01-2004, 06:45 PM

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:41:02 -0500, "frkrygow"
<"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>But in my view, the decision on taking the lane has to be up to the
>cyclist. The cyclist has a right to safe passage on the road, and he's
>got to judge for himself what's safe.
>
>I think the situation is analogous to an elderly driver at a stop sign,
>waiting to pull out into a busy four lane. The impatient teen or
>20-something behind her may say "Dammit, you could have made it there!"
>and begin blaring his horn. But the punk isn't the one who's risking an
>accident, and the punk isn't the one who knows the limitations of skill,
>sight, reflexes, etc. Even if the punk is delayed for a full (horrors!)
>30 seconds, the elderly driver has a right to wait until it's safe for
>_her_.

My Dad, who despite his fear of riding in traffic is a very wise
person, always says this when I'm out driving with him: "Don't mind
their honking and flashing lights. *they* aren't the ones who are
going to get into the wreck--*you* are. It's *your* life you're
risking, so take all the time you need to be safe"

>
>Likewise, you or a slightly delayed driver may say "Dammit, there's room
>to ride to the right!" But you aren't the one risking the accident, and
>there may be potholes, slippery spots, wheel-trap grates, or just
>leftover nervousness from a dangerously close pass at that spot two days
>ago.

The Virginia Driver's Handbook reminds drivers of this, but with
respect to motorcyclists--lane positioning will vary according to
conditions and surface, which affect *them* (motorcyclists) more than
cars. I wish they'd say the same thing about bicycles--since it's
even more true for us!

>
>Some cylists may abuse lane taking, I suppose, but in my experience
>that's rare.

More common are cyclists who are too easily bullied into the gutter,
thereby getting themselves into a world of trouble: parking lanes,
drains, doors, trash....

But then, they decide that the roadway's for cars and ride on the
sidewalk instead, and get crunched by cars at driveways and
intersections (one such crash--very bad one--on my street this year:
cyclist riding counterflow on the sidewalk at dusk, no lights
naturally, and struck by motorist turning left onto fairly busy
street. )

-Luigi

04-01-2004, 06:45 PM

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:41:02 -0500, "frkrygow"
<"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>But in my view, the decision on taking the lane has to be up to the
>cyclist. The cyclist has a right to safe passage on the road, and he's
>got to judge for himself what's safe.
>
>I think the situation is analogous to an elderly driver at a stop sign,
>waiting to pull out into a busy four lane. The impatient teen or
>20-something behind her may say "Dammit, you could have made it there!"
>and begin blaring his horn. But the punk isn't the one who's risking an
>accident, and the punk isn't the one who knows the limitations of skill,
>sight, reflexes, etc. Even if the punk is delayed for a full (horrors!)
>30 seconds, the elderly driver has a right to wait until it's safe for
>_her_.

My Dad, who despite his fear of riding in traffic is a very wise
person, always says this when I'm out driving with him: "Don't mind
their honking and flashing lights. *they* aren't the ones who are
going to get into the wreck--*you* are. It's *your* life you're
risking, so take all the time you need to be safe"

>
>Likewise, you or a slightly delayed driver may say "Dammit, there's room
>to ride to the right!" But you aren't the one risking the accident, and
>there may be potholes, slippery spots, wheel-trap grates, or just
>leftover nervousness from a dangerously close pass at that spot two days
>ago.

The Virginia Driver's Handbook reminds drivers of this, but with
respect to motorcyclists--lane positioning will vary according to
conditions and surface, which affect *them* (motorcyclists) more than
cars. I wish they'd say the same thing about bicycles--since it's
even more true for us!

>
>Some cylists may abuse lane taking, I suppose, but in my experience
>that's rare.

More common are cyclists who are too easily bullied into the gutter,
thereby getting themselves into a world of trouble: parking lanes,
drains, doors, trash....

But then, they decide that the roadway's for cars and ride on the
sidewalk instead, and get crunched by cars at driveways and
intersections (one such crash--very bad one--on my street this year:
cyclist riding counterflow on the sidewalk at dusk, no lights
naturally, and struck by motorist turning left onto fairly busy
street. )

-Luigi