From: ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: Re: motorists
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:49:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <8OCT199216121832@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>In article <casseres-081092103830@missmolly.apple.com>, casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes...
>
>Change it to *most* drivers and *most* cyclists and the 
>point still holds. 

That's true enough -- of both sides.

>Due to the inherent *lack* of acceleration and speed capabilites of most 
>bicycles and riders, putting them on the same road as cars and *expecting* 
>motorists to accept delays and frustration because `we have a right to be 
>on the road too' is optimistic at best. It is *not* unreasonable for a 
>motorist to expect a cyclist to be more diligent about traffic laws and 
>courteous behavior than the *average* motorist, given that the cyclist's 
>presence on the road has *already* placed unwanted restrictions on the 
>motorist. Also, a *minor* infraction is much more likely to cost a cyclist 
>his/her *life*, ergo you'd think they would have a vested interest in 
>proper road etiquette.

But the same argument can be reversed: just as motorists in their myoptic
way see only the inconveniences we cyclists impose on them, I in my myoptic
way see only the inconveniences they impose on me: smog filling the valley
where I live and my lungs, and a transportation system that forces me to
risk my life (though not to the degree most people naively imagine) just
to get around.  So I can just as easily say that it's *not* unreasonable
for them to obey the rules more than I do.  That a minor infraction on the
part of a motorist is more likely to kill someone other than that motorist
sounds like an argument for your being more law-abiding to me, BTW.

>Where I work, I have to go down a rather steep hill every morning and 
>evening... I *routinely* have to take extra care to not hit wobbly cyclists 
>trying to ride down the side of this washboard road on a hill *clearly* 
>marked with a sign that says "Walk bicycles down hill". It's not the delay 
>that bothers me ... it's not the extra care that their stupidity demands of 
>me that bothers me ... it's the fact that *their* careless behavior might 
>cause me to seriously injure another human being the *really* bothers me. I 
>think *that* attitude is shared by *most* motorists... the jerks that 
>purposly run cyclists off the road or throw things at them are more than 
>likely in a minority.

If that sign said "walk cars down hill" would you do it?  How would you feel
when bicyclists started bitching about how you insisted on driving down
the hill?  Signs like that one (I don't know about that particular one, of
course) are often placed by municipalities either to cover their asses
when they've built a dangerous road, or to convenience motorists who want
to go fast on narrow roads.  They don't have any legal force.
-- 
****************************************************************************
Eric House			"My employer doesn't share its opinions with
"Quayle in '94"		   	 me, so I can share only mine with you"
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles