Does telling that story constitute research? No. Does it prove that wearing a helmet should be a categorical imperative? No. But does it convince me that not wearing a helmet is unwise. Feel free in return to think me unwise! But don’t claim that people who wear helmets are the consumerist clones. I have no choice but to buy a helmet! The ones I make at home out of hemp never fit right!

And about rolling through stop signs and blowing lights: you have the gratitude of all the people who get to kill bikers with impunity.

However, I’ve seen an issue/claim repeatedly cited by GreenSubs, which I’d like to open up for further discussion. This claim seems to be the crux of your argument, GS.

Based on your posts, GreenSubs, I’ve noticed that you’re obsessed w/ trying ride in a way which prevents motorists from ‘hating’ cyclists. You’ve repeatedly addressed this issue.

You’ve claimed the following:

‘MANY people hate bicyclists as a whole, and they do because of people like Carlsson…

Standing up and shouting “I’M GOING TO IGNORE YOUR STUPID RULES UNTIL YOU MAKE THEM WORK FOR ME!” is petulant, naïve, arrogant, and ineffectual. And you wonder why people hate cyclists.’

GreenSubs, do you have any research which supports this claim?

GreenSubs, I think you’re over-estimating the hate which motorists have for cyclists.
I encounter a lot of rude and violent motorists on the road, but I think very few, if any, hate me for simply being a cyclist. To those motorists that act as if they hate me (either by honking, harassing, intimidating, or threatening me), I do not believe that these aggressive motorists – at least as many as you seem to suggest – act aggressively due to built-up, past-experiences w/ the cycling ride style which you’ve referred to as ‘outlaw’ or Carlsson-ist.

I believe that those motorists who do act hateful towards me have a simple objective —for me to get out of their way. The motorists who subscribe to the Culture of Immediacy school-of-thought, which places their immediate-“I’m late!”-priorities far above the livelihood and well-being of others, are most likely to ‘hate’ you/me for riding vehicularly in the lane, safely out of the door zone.

Or more simply put, motorists don’t hate cyclists for rolling stop signs. I believe they’re more likely to ‘hate’ you for riding in the middle of the lane (outside of the door zone) because, from their ill-informed perspective, you’re simply ‘blocking’ traffic (i.e. them).

I don’t want to get into what sociologists call a ‘me-ology,’ but since I haven’t seen any research on this, I will have to cite my personal experiences as well as my personally witnessed experiences of other motorist/cyclist interactions:

Motorists very rarely, if ever, publicly demonstrate ‘hate’ towards me for rolling a stop sign (when done safely, after communication, recognition, and eye contact, which is the way I do it when motorists are around). On the other hand, motorists regularly (approximately 1 out of every 10) publicly demonstrate ‘hate’ towards me (via honking, unnecessary engine revving to demonstrate their hegemonic position over me, verbal harassment, unnecessary and intentionally close passing) when I ride in the middle of the lane to avoid the door zone, when cars are parked.

Does that mean I’m going to stop riding out of the door zone just because motorists will stop hating me for doing so? No. I ride in a way which I feel is safest. I live in San Diego, CA an extremely hilly city w/ roads paved in and throughout canyons. It is an inefficient, dis-incentive to stop at every single sign. But I always yield and only proceed when safe to do so and after communication between myself and a present motorist.

I support the Idaho law. And I think it’s an innovative way to increase the incentive for people to pick-up bike commuting. The Idaho law increases efficiency of cycling trips. Hilly San Diego would benefit from it.

Is there any research on crash statistics in Idaho since the law went into effect? When did it go into effect?

W/ the Idaho law in effect, my bet is that motorists are more likely to yield and drive slower around cyclists knowing that they have the right to yield at signs and stop-and-go at lights (the Idaho law does grant that, does it not?)

With that said, I agree w/ Chris in Sacramento: I believe in a third-way, via traffic calming.

People simply drive too fast. We need to reduce the deadliness of their speed of travel. This ties into Carlsson’s idea of a big public education campaign. Many motorists simply do not know about the risks of riding in a door zone; so they harass me and ‘hate’ me as a result.

In San Diego, frequently cited as one of the healthiest cities in America, people are afraid to bike commute. Only .5% (that’s POINT five, not five) of commuters are bike commuters. That is unacceptable.

More of the same is not enough. We need innovative ideas. And, if we’re serious about global warming and climate solutions, we need to keep researching/exploring/implementing/moving forward w/ ideas w/ proven success.

That is essentially the crux of CA’s relatively new Complete Streets Act. As a society, we can no longer afford/sustain the consequences of our current auto-centric urban system. Infrastructure must be improved so that calmed automobile traffic can be attained and that potential bike-commuters will become new bike-commuters.

And, I believe, that it’s very possible that the Idaho law would have this (traffic calming) effect.

This post is certainly stimulating.

My gripe with it is the political dichotomy Carlsson posits, namely those who wish to “Copenhagenize” and the hardcore vehicular cyclists. I’d suggest there is a third way, via traffic calming, that encourages bicyclists to act more as do operators of vehicles by slowing motor vehicles such that increased cooperation and communication between various users is possible.

The most bothersome (and revealing) portion of the essay is this:

“Waiting to start on the green with the automobiles is to remain shunted to the unsafe corridor between parked cars and moving traffic”

With this statement, Carlsson shows himself as unwilling or unable to execute a fundamental traffic cycling maneuver, namely, the move to the left prior to reaching an intersection in order to align oneself with other traffic (and thus avoid being trapped to the right).

However, Carlsson’s statement is especially important, in that if someone as passionate about cycling as he can’t/won’t do this, then how practical is a pure vehicular-cycling strategy? Not very!

In the end, I favor the third way– emphasizing traffic calming over segregated bicycling facilities– because by slowing vehicles we minimize the harm they do, and better cyclists are not punished by being forced to ride in slow, inconvenient separate facilities ala Amsterdam.

It’s good to have some of those facilities, however, because certain people won’t ride at all without them. So let’s experiment with new bicycling facilities while stressing anti-car policies. It’s those anti-car policies– high taxes, limited parking, criminal penalties, strict and costly driver training requirements, narrow/slow streets, etc– and not the bike facilities per se that make Amsterdam a safe, fun place to bicycle (The Rembrandts and coffee houses don’t hurt, either).

The fact of the matter is, two-thirds of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injury, and a very high percentage of cyclists’ brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

So the author is wrong on this point and spreading harmful misinformation. Wearing a helmut might not jibe with his adolescent “radicalism,” but that’s no reason to try to talk anyone out of wearing one with careless distortions.

One consideration that really bears strongly on this issue is environment. What works in some cases might not work in others. If you are in a suburban environment your riding style could – and probably should – be a lot different than riding up Sixth Ave. through Midtown Manhattan at 5pm. Rolling through stops (clearly signaling that you intend to cede right of way to any crossing pedestrians or vehicles) is just fine in some cases, but weaving through throngs of pedestrians, knocking a few off their feet, is not. Ever. Unless you’re about to give birth and trying to make it to the hospital.

The most basic rule should be civility. That goes equally for cyclists and pedestrians (and to a lesser extent, drivers, though because of their personal shield, they have less ability to do so and therefore should just wait for the green light, no matter what). It’s something that is expected in those European cities that we like to use as a model, and seems to be sadly lacking from all parties on these shores.

I worry that the upshot on the Brooklyn bridge will just be the elimination of bikes altogether.

Beng and all the others who worry, I invite you to join the Brooklyn Bridge Cycle Track Advocates Livable Streets group.

One other point: pedestrians can be very shrill out there – especially joggers. It will become more and more apparent as it continues to get warmer, especially on the Brooklyn Bridge and on the new protected bike lanes in Manhattan.

I wonder if others have noticed a growing number of pedestrians who, yes, sometimes shrilly or rudely, simply refuse to get out of the bike lanes to allow for passing bikes. And i have used all manner of means to convey that I am simply requesting that they move three feet over and cross the line that clearly separates the space for bikes and runners and walkers. The new protected bike lanes in particular are a setting for sometimes shrill responses from pedestrians who assume that the bike lane is for them to walk in.

It will be fascinating to see how this plays out in the upcoming car-free span of Broadway around Times Square. I worry that the upshot on the Brooklyn bridge will just be the elimination of bikes altogether.

In many midtown locations now (around Madison Park and Broadway below 42nd street for two examples) pedestrians need to cross the bike lane (sometimes with their just acquired lunches) to get to the new tables and chairs that are beyond the bike lane. The set up in these locations demand a necessary awareness (and very slow going) for cyclists…this is not the pedestrians fault, of course, but is an unfortunate part of the design that can lead to shrillness on both sides of the encounter…and may also lead to a serious injury with or without helmets.

Fair point that bicyclists will not win the respect they deserve unless they show mutual respect for the safety and rights of others (including both pedestrians and motorists), but obeying the law to the letter is not a recipe for doing so.

Thank you, Bicyclesonly, for putting your finger on what was bothering me about Stevem and Greensub’s comments. I really don’t give a shit about what Chris Carlsson does three thousand miles away. I want to know what -if anything- can help eliminate the anti-cyclist hatred I hear and read. I don’t think it’s really about shrillness, and I’m not convinced that obeying the letter of the law – when nobody else is – will really help cyclists in this area.

In my view, ,these are the “extra steps” that bicyclists must take, not obeying every law to the letter. No one else obeys every law to the letter, why should bicyclists?

As for helmets, in my jurisdiction (NYC) it’s a personal choice for those over 14. When it’s daylight and fine weather and I’m not bicycling with my kids, I may forego the helmet and ride more slowly (maybe 10%-15% of the time I ride). Consistent with some research published in the UK, I find that I have an easier time negotiating with pedestrians and motorists when the helmet is off. I think I may read more as a “person” to them than as a “thing.” It is that much easier to establish eye contact and to communicate by nodding or shaking my head. This is not a recommendation against helmets, nor agreement that I “get what I deserve” if someone else injures me while I am bareheaded. Just an observation that helmets may have safety disadvantages as well.

Yes, the fact that cycling is more dangerous than it should be is a problem, but it’s a problem that is out there and that is being addressed through conventional, deliberative means, and as such the call-to-arms mentality represents a setback. Yes, you can make an argument that something like global warming represents something that requires that sort of imperative, but trying to manifest that imperative through convincing more people to bike is going to accomplish bugger-all. Having to stop at a red light is certainly not such an issue.

Activism is not the answer to every problem. Change is more frequently motivated through mutual understanding than it is through idealistic stands.

I don’t deny that I’ve been somewhat contemptuous (and if you want to argue that contempt isn’t constructive, you’re probably right), but I mean more than just contempt by “shrill”. I’m implying that the call-to-arms mentality, characterized by drawing sharp political divisions between competing viewpoints, is destructive.

So I actually meant something substantive by shrill. I was being contemptuous when I said “putz”.

Also, the word “shrill” contributes nothing to the discussion other than conveying your contempt for whoever you’re calling “shrill.”