Bicycle Austin forum

I agree with the 99% figure.  It is just that the 1% sticks out so bad they seem 10 times worse.  I mean, the fact is, when you are out on the road, do you honestly think that 1 in 10 are really out there playing the "Me vs the world" game?  No.  But that one guy in 100 that is, he really sticks out.

IMHO, this is just like the "bad cyclists".  Are they the majority?  Not even close, in fact, I see them as a very small minority.  HOWEVER, they are extremely  vocal and visible, thus they seem like a larger segment than they really are.

Most groups, drivers, cyclists, sports fans, political advocates, etc, they, for the most part, will be a good group.  But a small minority will generally be loud and generally out on the "extreme fringe" end, and it will project as a larger image for the group than it truly represents.  And this is why the vocal minority is a really bad thing, because as a whole,  you see them as a bigger issue than they really are.

Stu - your situation reminds me of a run in I had at Robert Earl Keen's NY Eve concert.  Some guy accused me of cutting into the beer line.  He broke out the "Are you callin' me a liar?" line on me.  I have to admit, that stroke of logic was impossible to refute.

Man, this sounds like deja vu.  Anyone remember about 10 years ago the guy with the anger issue who ran Lance Armstrong off the road?  And more specifically his domestic problems?

I will say I like you idea about getting cyclists to band together to help "change the perceptions of these car drivers."  I think it starts with helping them get a better view of cyclists.  If you look at a lot of the comments they are of the 'cyclists break all sorts of law', 'cyclists are jerks', etc.

I don't say it is right, but at the same time, we need to do our part to make sure that those arguments are not available for drivers to use.  If we can't say 'Hey, we DO follow the rules, we DO what we are supposed to' then drivers lose that argument, and our credibility goes up.

Of course, I am talking about addressing a vocal minority here.  But when you get right down to it, they are the ones that raise the noise.  When was the last time you heard a peep from someone that was a non-cyclist, but also pro-bicycles?

I whole heartily agree with the DT article.  Road Rage, be it from drivers or bicyclist does nothing to help anyone (I think I have made my feelings clear on the bicyclist portion of that).

MUTUAL respect (granted I think cars have a much longer way to go than bicyclists).

Just take the Shoal Creek North route, there is a way to get to Far West via a hike/bike bridge (near the Grey + on the map).  Then you can take Far West / Mesa etc through.

I included a map.  The bridge is red dots on your map.

* For less traffic around Far West, take Wood Hollow, to Greystone and take that West, parallel to Far West, up to Mesa.

IMHO, I don't think speed limits are an economic issue.  They are just the safe speed for which a route can be taken.  If they were changed, people would compensate, and things would advance.  It happens all the time.  Economy has nothing to do with it.  Does Lamar have its current speed limits because there are a ton of businesses on it, or because it is one of the major roads in Austin?  If anything the businesses followed the big road because it give them more visibility.

That being said, I don't see it being practical to call for a flat reduction of speed limits on shared use roads.  While it would be nice, I don't see it happening.  I would call it a very bicycle-centric suggestion, and since we are talking mixed use, we need to consider both sides.

IMHO, the speed limit isn't the problem - the biggest issue is driver awareness of bicyclists.  If motorists were more aware of the bicyclists on the road, then it would not matter what the speed limit was, so long as it was safe-reasonable for the route in question.

I think the key here is to try to look at the argument from both sides - motorists and bicycles, and figure out a good/realistic compromise.

rmonsees - you do raise some interesting points.  But the fact is that cycling can't be evaluated in a vacuum.  Bike riding (in all forms) goes hand in hand with the cars on the road (because at some point you are riding on the road).  Sure, some of the accidents are caused due to poor roads, accidents on mt bike trails, etc.  But, I would venture to say that the bulk of the accidents are due to vehicle/bicyclist accidents.

Does safety need to be improved?  This is a resounding yes.  When the statistics show that only 1% of traffic on the roads is bikes, YET 2% of the fatalities are bicyclists (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm), that disproportion cites a problem.

What has to happen is education on ALL FRONTS:
- Motorists need to be aware that bicyclists are out there.  Bicycle awareness should be a major focus of defensive driving classes, drivers ed classes, etc.  Signs all around should be made to make cars aware of cyclists.  We spend tons of money on DWI awareness, why not similar money for bicycle awareness?  Plus the deterrents are there for DWI and the like - jail time, similar needs to be true for accident with bicyclists.

- Cyclists need to be smart about their riding, etc.  Individuals have to be mindful of traffic and be aware of as much around them as possible.  Cycling groups need to go out and work to raise cycling awareness.  Not antagonizing drivers and causing more issues *cough*critical*cough*mass*cough*.  And comments, such as the on Patrick made, while true - need to be well thought out before making them.  Sure, cycling is safe, but only in a vacuum, put cars around it, and now you have a MUCH more dangerous activity.  And the key point that I feel the quote misses is that helmets are only a small part of the solution.  Just like a seat belt can only do so much, helmets are the same way, HOWEVER accident PREVENTION is a better solution than damage management.

- Government needs to be willing to equally give cyclists their due.  Helmet laws solve nothing, sure they make everyone wear a helmet, but it does nothing to educate the masses.  It also doesn't help provide safe areas to cyclists.  It serves as the above mentioned damage managment, while not addressing accident avoidance.  I know others disagree, but I think bike lanes DO provide a safer area for cyclists.  I think education can do MUCH more, but in lieu, we do our best.  FINALLY - punishment needs to be even, and FAIR in cases where people hit/kill cyclists.  Too many stories on this site and others talk about dead cyclists who's killers got away clean or with minimal punishment.

Ultimately a lot of work needs to be done, but if done properly, cycling can be made much safer than it is now.

Oh, and one final thing - in a vacuum, I agree cycling is less dangerous than climbing, sky diving or scuba diving (well maybe not scuba diving, I say this as a diver).  HOWEVER none of those sports have to share their space with 2 ton of death bearing down on them multiple times a minute.

I am kind of curious why you are against bike lanes.  I mean, I get your stance that bikes and cars should co-exist peacefully (as do I), however I think bike lanes are a good medium in which for bikes to have their area and feel relatively safe.  For me 3' is plenty of room.

Now granted, your idea is more of an idea where bikes and cars share the road without having to segregate, but I think that needs a lot more education on the part of drivers, that I don't feel we are ready for ... YET.

As a former resident of 78704, that area and South Congress are not too bad if you know the back ways to get to some of the safer major arteries.