+1 for sure... i could care less whether motorists think that we are the scum of the earth, so long as they respect and recognize our right to the road. most motorists are law abiding citizens so they will begrudgingly respect a 3-foot buffer if they are educated about its existence. and for the record, i also felt like smacking the author until i reached paragraph 4 when his moral conscience trumped his personal opinions.B15serv said:I think thats an amazing article because of how it speaks to non cyclists. We already know how we feel about our need for safety so an article that appeals to us isnt really needed. This piece seems great though because I think the people that hate us will actually listen to it because its so obvious that the writer shares their feelings.
Don’t be too worried if it isn’t really super bright and annoying—if those are attributes you desire it is highly recommended to make your own, or fork over several hundred dollars for those overpriced Dinotte things.ZoSoSwiM said:Hence why I can't wait for my super bright and annoying cateye led to show up.. It'll be nice knowing I have something thats very visible flashing randomly on my bike..
PBike said:How about instead of the flags they use on the back of recumbents, we wear flags that stick out 3 feet on each side of us?:idea:
Ya gotta watch out for 'em.Slim Again said:Infesting ... a curious word choice.
there you are—motorists are annoyed by cyclists infesting the roads, you can't wait to annoy them back, they get even more annoyed by the infestation, and on and on. There has to be a better way.ZoSoSwiM said:Hence why I can't wait for my super bright and annoying cateye led to show up..
Back in the old days, when our numbers were more limited, the last rider would yell, "Car back!" Then the whole group would get in a single file as close to the shoulder as safely possible. The front rider would determine if it's safe to pass and yell, "Clear!" Then the last rider would motion for the car (or line of cars) to pass. That was pretty much standard.wim said:but even he doesn't know or believe that bicycles are vehicles.
quote: "...riding side by side and taking up a whole lane of a two-lane road, oblivious to the vehicle traffic stacking up behind them."
The author of the article uses the words " . . . vehicle traffic stacking up behind them." when he should have said "motor vehicles stacking up behind them." Obviously, his definition of 'vehicle' is a car or a truck. Under the law, bicycles are vehicles too.Where do you get that idea, wim?