
How to Not Kill a Cyclist - xbryanx
http://www.themorningnews.org/article/how-to-not-kill-a-cyclist
======
vbtemp
I want to co-exist with bikers, I really do. I wish our cities on the east
coast would be more bike friendly.

But bikers need to make up their minds. Who are they, vehicles or pedestrians?
Each comes with it's own rights and obligations.

I see bikers all the time blow through red lights, stop signs, and pedestrian
crosswalks. When I'm a driver I always need to slam on the breaks to avoid
hitting them as such intersections when I have the right-of-way or a green
light. And in dense cities a biker can cause a tremendous backup, with
gridlock followng him as he makes his way through the city.

Likewise, when I'm a pedestrian, I constantly need to watch not for cars, but
for high speed bikers blowing perpendicularly through pedestrian crosswalks
when the pedestrians have the crossing light. Why do they get to blow through
pedestrian crosswalks _and_ red lights and stop signs?

EDIT: And bikers who listen to their iPod and wear headphones while blowing
through red lights - F __you!

~~~
gte910h
I drive a Prius. I have been hit _by cyclists_ t-boning me 3 times because
they follow the "listen, don't look" school of cycling.

(I have never hit one)

~~~
eaurouge
Oh my! A Prius driver complaining about other road users :-)

I have a problem with Prius drivers, they always seem more interested in
improving their gas mileage personal best than driving a reasonable speed on
the freeway.

~~~
gte910h
Not me, I drive it like any other car. I turn off the crash screen while
driving.

------
awolf
A regional note for San Francisco: the bikers here aren't helping things. We
seem to have a disproportionate number of asshole bikers who seem to think
they are entitled to fly through stop-signs as 10/15 mph. As a person who both
bikes and drives a lot in the city I see both sides of this coin. I understand
that coming to a full stop is an expensive operation for cyclists... but
approaching a 4 way stop with cars already at the intersection and then
suddenly deciding that you're a magical cyclist that doesn't need to obey
traffic laws is both dangerous and pisses of motorists which only increase
tension for all people involved.

~~~
garyrichardson
I believe this is universal -- it also happens in Vancouver, BC.

Cyclists complain about motorists, motorists complain about cyclists. A
certain percentage of each group are jerks who don't play nicely.

------
antidoh
“Bicycle riders on public roads have the same rights and responsibilities as
motorists, and are subject to the same rules and regulations.”

Imagine a car, coming to a red light in the right lane. It then turns right on
red, but rather than driving on in the new road, it makes a sudden u-turn,
coming back to the intersection. Then makes a right on green, and continues on
in the original direction.

If you're a rider, discourage your colleagues from this practice. It's a
violation of the responsibilities listed in the quote above, but worse, it
promotes contempt for cyclists among us drivers.

It's easier to promote cross-community cooperation when you're not cherry
picking your responsibilities.

~~~
georgieporgie
Without further information, I have no reason to think that the scenario you
described is illegal. In fact, I've seen any number of motorists,
motorcyclists, and cyclists do exactly that.

Incidentally, the whole notion of cyclists being subject to the same laws as
cars is rather ridiculous. Bicycles are _not_ cars, just as cars are not "road
train" semis.

~~~
antidoh
"Without further information, I have no reason to think that the scenario you
described is illegal."

It depends on where and when you are. Traffic laws vary from place to place,
and change over time.

According to wikipedia, u-turns are generally legal in Indiana and generally
illegal in Oregon. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-turn>

In Colorado, u-turns are subjectively legal under safe conditions.
[http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue-
MV/RMV/12126578...](http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue-
MV/RMV/1212657832969)

In Colorado, you will be fined and assessed costs and points for a
subjectively illegal u-turn:
[http://www.denvertrafficlawyer.com/index.php/legal-
services2...](http://www.denvertrafficlawyer.com/index.php/legal-
services2/traffic-tickets-a-driving-charges/illegal-u-turn)

I don't know what "points" means to a bicyclist, or one who has or doesn't
have a driver license.

~~~
nknight
Yes, Oregon's U-turn law is a constant source of annoyance in the pacific
northwest. Meanwhile, if U-turns were made illegal in California, navigating
the bay area would have a twilight zone quality to it.

------
revelation
Can we shortcut through the usual discussions?

As a cyclist, I'm hyper aware of the fact that I'm not a 4 ton steel SUV. If
you see me do something dangerous, comfort your rage with the simple fact that
it will likely kill or severely injure me if it comes to that.

If you see me break the law, know that per law I'll be fined like a normal
vehicle, even though these are based off the danger radiating from a SUV going
40mph.

~~~
wccrawford
As a cyclist and a motorist, that's bullshit.

As a cyclist, you're making motorists angry, and that makes it less safe for
me.

As a motorist, there's a chance you'll pull some stupid shit and _I'll_ be the
one that hits you. And then I have to live the rest of my life with your death
on my conscience, even though it wasn't really my fault.

Stop doing dangerous shit on the roads.

------
WalterBright
I live in Seattle, and there are a lot of cyclists. I don't bike any more
because it's too dangerous. But I have a question for the cyclists:

What's with wearing the tour de france outfit? 9/10 cyclists are wearing
racing outfits covered with logos. They aren't racing, they're just biking to
work or biking because it's a nice day out.

1/10 is wearing shorts and a t-shirt, what I wore when biking.

------
tomjakubowski
I was taught to always open the driver's-side door (left-hand drive) with my
RIGHT hand, which forces you to turn your body (and head) to look for
potential dooring victims.

~~~
aidos
Good idea, like it. If everyone was taught that I could have been saved a fair
amount of pain in the past.

------
cletus
Cars aren't just rough on cyclists. Being a pedestrian is dangerous enough. In
NYC it's not so bad since there are so many pedestrians that drivers are
somewhat used to it (and are often pedestrians themselves). But even here you
have to watch out:

\- In NYC it is illegal to turn right at a red light. Seriously, I wish people
would learn this. Actually I wish cops would enforce this;

\- As a whole you can't trust cars to indicate in the US in my experience. Not
indicating and turning is common enough but you sometimes see indicating and
not turning. I guess people change their mind;

\- Running red lights, particularly at night, seems to be common in NYC. I
certainly see garbage trucks do this but I see taxis, delivery trucks and
normal cars do it as well. Most slow down to make sure there's no oncoming
traffic from the side street but you can't rely on being noticed as a
pedestrian.

\- In Australia, when cars turn left (remember, other side of the road there),
pedestrians have right of way when crossing the street (if it's not at a
traffic light). You're playing with your life as a pedestrian if you rely on
that however.

I think I would go ballistic if I ever got a ticket for jaywalking in NYC.
Fact is, it's most dangerous as a pedestrian (and probably a cyclist) when you
believe you have right of way. When you know you don't you're much more
careful.

In California I feel like I'm taking my life in my hands anytime I walk
anywhere (in SV although SF is fine). The whole turning right at red lights
being OK thing is a recipe for killing pedestrians and I really wish it didn't
exist.

I really look forward to the day when all cars are self-driving. If the number
of people killed in car accidents were killed by disease it would be epidemic.
It's hard to fathom just how blase people can be about injury and death on
such a massive scale.

Of course how this will play out will be fairly predictable. You will have
probably a large segment of the population who sticks to their guns regarding
driving themselves as a personal liberty, lives be damned.

------
viraptor
And yet there are strange projects going on like allowing bicycles to run red
lights:
[http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311...](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311182.ece)
Apparently the change was discussed in UK too for some test periods and I'm
really afraid of it.

The greatest danger in my mind is not that the collision may happen. The worst
part is that if I collide with another car at 10mph, the worst that can happen
is that both cars will need some new paint, even if I don't hit the break. At
the same speed, it's possible I'm going to kill a cyclist - pretty much
actually run over him before I start breaking if he suddenly appears in front
of me.

------
cpt1138
Preaching to the choir. The chances of a driver reading this and actually
doing anything are nil.

~~~
antidoh
Maybe. I'm a driver. I read it. I learned.

~~~
kabdib
This is incredibly off-topic for HN.

However, I will add one more piece of advice for drivers: Take a motorcycle
safety course. You don't /have/ to ride, of course, but it will probably be a
lot of fun and it will teach you a LOT about your level of awareness on the
road.

(For instance: The MSF courses teach you to look ahead about twelve seconds.
I'm guessing that most drivers only have a couple seconds of planning, if
that. Similarly, always having contingencies -- "where do I go if that truck
changes lanes?" -- and noticing little things -- "that rear-view mirror is
canted, so that driver isn't even bothering to look.")

Okay, back to r/HN :-)

~~~
antidoh
"This is incredibly off-topic for HN."

You're almost completely correct, except for the "interesting to hackers"
caveat in the guidelines.

Even with the caveat, this is probably still off-topic. Except that a lot of
readers probably ride.

But _still_ it's probably off-topic.

Except ... I've noticed a lot of weekend posts that are both off-topic and
interesting, and I tend to see weekends on HN as a brief relaxing of the
rules. Which I like.

~~~
hughw
It was Bike to Work day, so it's topical.

------
zobzu
I've been riding bikes to work every day in a few parts of Europe for about 10
years, including big cities traffic, suburbs and rural areas.

I've been doing the same in San Francisco for some month recently.

In Europe, everyone treat the bike as a vehicule, no question asked. Everyone
knows the hand sign. People get doored, and the like but it's rare. You gotta
be more careful in heavy traffic, but basically, when riding, it feels safe in
most areas. Cars will wait behind you when they can't pass super-safely-
with-5-meter-distance-from-your-side almost every time. Nearly everyone of
them used a bike and knows how it is, at least, that's the feeling.

Now, fast forward to SF. I was surprised, to say the least.

If there is no bike lane, something like 90% of the cars simply do not give a
single shit about bikes. That is, if you're on the rightmost part of the road,
they will pass, no matter what (you can choose here: get even more right and
risk being doored, the risk is rather high here. slow down to a near halt and
go right [that's what I do]. go straight and hear the honk + generally get hit
by the rear view mirror.)

Knowing that you can avoid streets without a bike lane, and when forced, take
the full lane (you'll hear the honk but you'll live).

Here's one that happened to me recently: some streets in SF have a tram lane
and a car lane. No bike lane. car pushed me on the tram lane thinking 'thats
where cyclists go'. Tram was coming behind of course. Got to feel the friction
of both car and tram. No injuries. Unfortunately I don't have a good
alternative route.

Here's another thing that happens everyday:

Car park in the bike lane, so you gotta pass it. Look behind you, car is
coming, so you slow down, and let them pass (they will never let you pass). If
there is a continuous flow of cars, and it happens, none will let you pass.
Most cyclists just pass and assume the driver will slow down (and get angry
but hey, you gotta pass some day). Personally, I just wait as long as it takes
or walk it on the side walk if its more than a minute.

Pedestrians are no better. They don't cross at red if cars are coming. But
they do for bikes. Why the hell? I understand crossing at red when it's safe,
don't get me wrong, but don't cross in front of bikes that's extremely dumb.

Cyclists are no better either. 50% (?) ignore the signs and traffic entirely.
That being said I noticed that in some parts of the city this is actually
_safer_ to cross at the red light while cars are waiting, than waiting with
the cars (in line or slightly in front, although I always go slightly i front
to be sure they see me). Sad but true. If you start with the cars, they wont
let you start first and thus you may get hit if the bike lane is not wide
enough or simply not there. Even if there is a bike lane, its gone when
there's a crossing and drivers naturally push you on the right side for some
reason. I still stop at all traffic lights but this is disturbing me a lot
lately. Whats the point of respecting the red light in all situations in the
US, being killed? and I bet that's why so many ignore them.

Finally, after a few month I personally got "right turned", and broke some
bones, hence my super-safe behavior assuming the driver is going to be doing
the wrong thing in every situation. Before I would expect that some situations
were safe, such as the right turn if you're in front of the cars. But no. They
just turn into you even thus they've seen you, because, you're a bike, you'll
probably brake in time, plus you should be on the sidewalk, etc. So yeah, I
never cross a street without slowing down a lot if a car is less than 10
meters behind me (and obviously if its next to me or slightly ahead, even thus
I'm on a bike lane, although they're supposed to switch lane)

As a last anecdotal story of this very long post, I was also surprised by
rainy days. About, let's say, 15% of the cars take the opportunity to splash
you when they can. Seriously. My last rainy day in SF, that happened 3 times
over my 20min ride back home. The last one the guy stopped and laughed. I was
100% soaked. It means to me that a high enough number of drivers absolutely
hate cyclists with passion. WTF is wrong with people?

~~~
carguy1983
Yeah. In Europe, cars treat bikes like vehicles, and bikes treat cars like
vehicles.

In America, bikers simply do not follow the laws they are supposed to - and
neither do cars. It's not really a "bike is victim" paradigm - it's more like
nobody pays any attention to the god damn laws, at all. Because the fucking
cops don't enforce the rules!

They give tickets to speeders and red light runners but NOT - NEVER, in fact,
to people who don't signal when turning or changing lanes, people who drive
too slowly in the fast lane, people who pass on the right, people who stop in
the middle of the street to wait for a parking spot, people who do not use
turn lanes appropriately, people who stop at yellow lights, people who drive
too slowly, people who do not yield to pedestrians, people who block
driveways, people who turn left or U-turn illegally, people who ... the list
goes on for miles.

Bicycle riders make all these same mistakes as well.

~~~
jmadsen
sorry to break in on the generalizations, but -

When I lived in Spain they killed so many cyclists every year, it was the
source of macabre jokes. I found that to be true in several other countries.

Probably should leave out the "Europe vs US" bit of your argument, and just
stick to what you think the causes are.

~~~
zobzu
Your reply is not directly to me but you're probably right. I used Europe as
well as a generalization but there are some exceptions and I didn't bike in
every single EU country (for instance, I've never done that in urban
areas/traffic in Spain).

In general the more south you go the more horrible the driving in EU (yeah
another generalization but this one seems pretty good).

I've been honk'd heavily in Italy (Naples) once because I was waiting for the
traffic light to go green. I thought it must be I missed something but nope..
they just were "never stopping at this one and its bad practice to do so", one
guy said.

------
ronnier
To the cyclists among us, how do you overcome the fear of riding in the middle
of heavy trafficked roads during rush hour? This is very common in the Seattle
area and almost as common in Dallas.

~~~
awolf
For me, the realization that it is actually SAFER to claim the lane rather
than be meek and risk getting doored or risk being in a position where cars
assume they should pass you. Better to piss people off than risk your life.
Plus, in most of those heavily trafficked roads the cars that are getting
pissed off are delusional and don't realize that you're basically moving at
the same speed as traffic anyway.

------
fotbr
Invalid assertion. I didn't notice more cyclists on my commute, and it is
absolutely not a cause for concern - there were none. That's right. None.
Zero. Zip. Nada.

The entire list of vehicles encountered during my commute on the 18th was: the
same guy I often see around town on his goldwing, a maroon 70s or very early
80s firebird or camaro, three pickups, a dump truck, the county sheriff in his
personal car (he lives a few houses down from me), and a rather large John
Deere tractor being moved from one field to another on the other side of the
railroad tracks. Oh, and a train, on those tracks, carrying, amongst other
things, 737 bodies on their way to final assembly. And while it's not a
vehicle - one skunk, freshly killed.

My commute is 12 miles (one direction) of 2 lane roads across farmland. It's
flat, boring, and the roads are in pretty poor condition with no shoulders.
The cyclists in this area stick to other routes for their long-distance rides,
where the pavement is in much better shape, and they have a shoulder that they
can use if they have to dodge an idiot, instead of finding an overgrown ditch
and a barbed-wire fence.

~~~
Moto7451
Common reason is comfort but I think the loud colors are purely for show. Just
like having a flashy car. They make cycling kits that look like every day
wear, especially for mountain biking where having a bit if extra material is
extremely helpful when you run out of talent and crash ;).

Personally, I just wear cargo shorts with gussets and a brightly colored
exercise shirt (like the kind worn for running). Visibility and comfort
without looking like a billboard.

------
the_mat
A good article, thanks for writing it.

I'm not convinced that a majority of cyclists understand that they have to
follow the same rules as motorized vehicles. It's unusual to see the driver of
a car blast through a stop sign without slowing down at all. It happens, but
not that often. On the other hand, it's unusual for me to see a cyclist who
_doesn't_ run stop signs.

I can see why: because you're going slower and have a full view around you.
But that's still not an excuse if you're going to play the "cars and bikes are
both vehicles" card.

~~~
mattstreet
There are different laws for bikes, it isn't just bike == vehicle.

Example: [http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/07/28/a-stop-
sign...](http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/07/28/a-stop-sign-
solution/)

------
swdunlop
"If, for instance, you are behind a cyclist and approaching a stop, passing
the cyclist likely will gain you nothing. In fact, you may end up passing the
cyclist twice: once before the intersection, a second time after. Which, let’s
face it, is going to annoy you."

Speaking as a cyclist, I hope not -- that means the cyclist has advanced past
a car in front of him in the lane, which is a stupid thing to do. Either own
the lane and be a vehicle, or get off the bike and on the sidewalk.

~~~
zobzu
Actually that doesn't work that way. In many states sharing the lane is
legitimate, and biking no the sidewalk as well.

But that means, you're fine with all bikes claiming the complete lane right?
That means you can't pass them at the stop, and you can't pass them as long as
the left lane is not 100% free (just like passing a car).

When I do claim the lane when I bike (it happens that I need to, if there's no
bike lane and it's a dangerous part of the road), I don't pass cars at the
stop. But again, most of the time, I don't, and can't, claim the lane. This
means I'd rather be in front of the cars at the stop (= they see me) than next
to the cars 3 cars behind the stop (= whoever turn right, won't see me, and
since they rarely use the signalization lights, or perform another stop before
turning right, it means its horribly dangerous)

------
zaccus
In Chicago I've almost never seen a cyclist stop at a red light or stop sign.
Cyclists here feel free to ride on the wrong side of the road, weave in and
out of traffic, and cut off drivers. I'm no lawyer, but I fear that if I hit
one of these clowns then I'll be completely at-fault. It sucks.

Worst of all, I've never, ever seen a cyclist get pulled over. If cyclists
were held to the same responsibilities as drivers, that would be one thing.
But they're not, hence the resentment.

~~~
dasil003
> _In Chicago I've almost never seen a cyclist stop at a red light or stop
> sign._

Then you're not paying enough attention to cyclists. Stop and take a deep
breath before you kill someone.

~~~
nachteilig
That's really unnecessary. In fact, cyclists here rarely if ever stop at stop
signs. It's a very dangerous situation.

------
blaubaer
>Lay Off the Horn

If you're cycling on the road, even though there is a perfectly good bike lane
right next to it, I will honk at you. Every single time.

~~~
Zak
Is this common where you live? I do quite a bit of cycling and am very aware
of cyclists when driving. I often see what the author describes as
"pedestrians on bicycles" using the sidewalk when a bike lane is available,
but cyclists outside of a bike lane on the road are quite rare most places
unless they're preparing to turn toward the inside (i.e. a left turn in places
where it's customary to drive on the right).

When learning to drive (and before), I was taught that that the horn is for
alerting other people to dangerous situations and preventing collisions. It is
not for expressing anger or frustration at other people. I've noticed that
people tend to become angry or frustrated much more quickly when driving and
when interacting with someone who is driving (e.g. as a pedestrian). You might
want to consider whether you're acting under the influence of a disinhibition
effect and ask yourself whether you want to yell "CHANGE WHAT YOU'RE DOING OR
I'LL HIT YOU WITH MY CAR" at a cyclist for forcing you to drive slower for 30
seconds. That's what honking a horn conveys.

------
jack-r-abbit
I hear a lot of complaining about not being enough bike lanes. I get that. we
need more. But I absolutely do not understand why cyclists that do have a bike
lane still choose to ride right on the white line that separates their lane
from mine. You have a good 3-4 feet all to your self... use it! Oh... and stop
at traffic lights and stop signs like everyone else.

~~~
freiheit
Because many of those bike lanes are 90% door zone or have other hazards,
leaving almost on top of the white line the safest part of the lane.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Not the ones I'm talking about. I see many more bike lanes that have no road
side hazards and bikers still ride on the white line.

------
bkrull
Honest question for cyclists - why do you continue biking?

It sounds like cycling is far more dangerous and potentially deadly than
driving. As others mentioned you'll never "educate away" the problem. The road
system is clearly not designed for cycling so both drivers and cyclists are
annoyed.

What is it that you get out of cycling to make it worth the risk?

~~~
rwallace
Two things that may be worth taking into account:

1\. Most people have a value system that doesn't refer only to themselves.
Driving has staggering negative externalities. Every time somebody forgoes a
car for some - any - other method of transport, everyone on the planet becomes
a little better off.

2\. Daily exercise is one of the few things really demonstrated to
significantly improve your health, productivity and lifespan. If you have the
temperament or willpower to go to the gym everyday, that's fine. If not, being
able to make your mode of transport double as exercise is arguably worth
significantly increased risk.

------
SoftwareMaven
I would _love_ to road bike, but northern Utah doesn't have a year-round cycle
culture, which means people never quite learn how to ride with cyclists.
Scares me to death (and this coming from a motorcyclist, so my tolerance isn't
super low).

------
SteveC
In Japan, where many people cycle, they ride on the footpath. It seems to work
out fine.

~~~
fivethirty
The trade off being that it takes twice as long to get anywhere because you
can't go very fast. At least that was my experience commuting on a bike in
Japan.

------
cmod
If you want to become a superb cyclist, three months of riding around Shanghai
is an excellent training course.

------
grannyg00se
"If there is no bike lane, something like 90% of the cars simply do not give a
single shit about bikes."

You have to respect the culture in which you are immersed. It seems insane to
me that cyclists would even consider riding on a road that has no bike lane.

Right or wrong, the existence of bike lanes sets up a dichotomy in people's
minds. Either there is a bike lane and bikes belong there (and I have to be
aware of them), or there is no bike lane and bikes do not belong (I won't be
expecting them - I may even resent their presence).

Pedestrians have their place, and cars have their place. Bikes have their
place, but unfortunately only on a few select roadways.

~~~
fivethirty
Except that, as is mentioned in the OP, in the US cyclists are legally allowed
use most all roadways and are treated legally like an automobile in cases
where a bike lane does not exist.

~~~
grannyg00se
That may be the case, legally. But as the OP indicates, that is not always the
case, culturally.

But if bicycles are treated like motor vehicles, why is it that you often find
them creating a lane where there is none? You don't often see motorcycles
riding alongside cars, in the same lane, grazing parked vehicles.

~~~
fivethirty
_But if bicycles are treated like motor vehicles, why is it that you often
find them creating a lane where there is none? You don't often see motorcycles
riding alongside cars, in the same lane, grazing parked vehicles._

I'm not 100% sure what you're describing, but it sounds like you are talking
about a situation where a cyclist is riding on the far right side of the lane
next to the parked cars and is being passed _in the same lane_ by other cars.
What sounds dangerous to me about this situation is not that the cyclist is
creating his own lane (because he's not, he's in the proper right most lane),
but rather that cars are trying to pass him (a vehicle that is legally allowed
to be there) without leaving enough room.

Also, kind of off topic, but where I'm from (California), motorcycles are
legally allowed to weave between lanes and do it all the time. Not that I
think this is a particularly smart think to do :)

~~~
grannyg00se
If the cyclist was in the center of the lane it wouldn't look like he's trying
to "create a lane". And cars wouldn't try to pass in the same lane in that
case because it wouldn't be possible. They would wait until it is safe to pass
properly. Or get really pissed off and try to intimidate the cyclist to move
over, but that goes back to my point about culture and not belonging.

Being legally allowed to weave between lanes doesn't seem right.

~~~
fivethirty
_Being legally allowed to weave between lanes doesn't seem right._

Yeah, I'm not really sure why it's legal, but I've also never ridden a
motorcycle. A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that it's legal in most of
Europe and Japan though, although not in most places in the US.

Anyway, FWIW, I commute by bike and ride in the center of the lane when there
is no bike lane for the exact reason that you describe. However, I don't
really get what you are saying about "not belonging". Cars and bikes are both
legally allowed on the same roads. Just because this inconveniences some
drivers doesn't mean that bikes are "culturally unacceptable". In other words,
the opinion of said drivers (legally, and I'd argue culturally) is no more
important than that of the bikers who think that it's a totally acceptable
thing for them to be there so long as they follow traffic laws.

~~~
grannyg00se
I'm not trying to imply that the inconvenience makes them unacceptable. That
they are culturally unacceptable is a fact - stated by the OP as : "cars
simply do not give a single shit about bikes". I'm simply trying to provide an
explanation for why that may be.

I suppose people downvote because they dislike my explanations. I think it is
reasonable to think that many motorists don't feel that cyclists belong on the
same road space. As a cyclist, I wouldn't feel that I belong on the same road
space as cars. That's why I haven't ridden a bike since moving to a city where
the sidewalks are busy.

