Motorists Should Know
Millions of people bicycle safely on public roads. But many are scared away because motorists sometimes pass too closely, honk, or tell cyclists to get off the road. Though these behaviors are not the most common source of injuries to cyclists, they are unsafe and illegal. The traffic law says that drivers must pass at a safe distance. When a travel lane is not wide enough to share, safe bicyclists move to the middle of the lane to insure that motorists use the next lane over to pass or wait until it is safe. Cyclists who ride too close to the edge of the road are risk colliding with suddenly-opening doors of parked cars or falling due to hazards such as sand, poor pavement, or debris. Motorists can help prevent crashes with cyclists by taking care to follow the rules on yielding and turning. Make sure to yield to cyclists when turning left or entering the road from a side street, driveway, or parking lane. Merge completely to the far right edge of the road in advance of making a right turn. Wait for any bicyclist ahead to clear the intersection before you make a right turn — do not turn across the path of the cyclist. Even if there is a bike lane, you should merge into the bike lane before turning right.
Cyclists, in turn, can make themselves safer and respected. Competent cyclists politely cooperate with other drivers by yielding when required, choosing the correct lane at intersections, using lights at night, and otherwise following the same traffic laws as motorists. Such cyclists are far safer than inexperienced cyclists.
Sadly, police and courts don’t always protect cyclists and their right to safe travel. All cyclists are often blamed because some cyclists break rules. The traffic laws apply to individuals, not groups, and protect even those who have previously broken laws. Please ask the police to enforce the traffic laws to protect the public: from cyclists who ride unlawfully and from motorists who use their vehicle to harass or threaten, or who violate the rules on safe passing, turning, or yielding.
| The Selfish Motorist Thinks | The Wise Cyclist Replies |
|---|---|
| Bicyclists don’t belong on the road. | Bicyclists are considered drivers of vehicles and therefore have the same rights to the road as motorists. |
| Bicyclists belong on the sidewalk. | Bicycling on the sidewalk is dangerous to both pedestrians and bicyclists, and is frequently illegal. |
| Bicyclists aren’t licensed so they shouldn’t be on the road. | There is a common law right for anyone to use the public roads. Driving a motor vehicle can create a public danger and therefore is a privilege that can be revoked. |
| Bicyclists don’t pay fuel taxes so they don’t belong on the road. | Paying fuel taxes does not give you the right to use the roads. Moreover, local road work is chiefly funded out of general tax revenues. Almost all bicyclists, or their parents, also drive cars and therefore pay fuel taxes. The cost of bicyclists using the road is minimal compared to the congestion and road damage created by cars and trucks. |
| Bicyclists delay traffic. | Most traffic delay is caused by cars. Bicyclists on a narrow road with traffic volumes close to capacity can create delay. Often the delay may be more apparent than real, as motorists catch up to where they would have been in the wait at traffic lights. Widening narrow roads by a few feet can eliminate the potential delay caused by bicyclists. It is impossible for anyone to use the roads without occasionally causing delay to others. |
| Bicyclists don’t belong on the road because they ignore traffic signals and other road rules. | Just because some bicyclists ignore the rules doesn’t change the law, which says that bicyclists may use the road. The law does also say that bicyclists must follow the traffic rules. Doing so makes bicycling much safer, and increases bicycling’s public esteem. |
| Engineers should design roads for motor vehicles. | Roads should be designed with all legal vehicles in mind, including bicycles. |
| Accounting for bicycles in designing roads is difficult and expensive. | All bicyclists require is smooth and well-maintained pavement, drain grates which are outside of the travel way or otherwise do not prevent a hazard, loop detectors which are sensitive to bicycles, and either smooth shoulders or slightly wider lanes, or both, on arterial and major collector roads. |
| We built bicycle paths so bicyclists should stay off the roads. | Bicyclists who know how to operate in traffic can ride safely almost anywhere; those who do not get hurt everywhere. Some bikeway designs make bicycling slower, more dangerous, or both for bicyclists who want to get some place. Every road is a bikeway. |
While a bicycle can be technically considered a “vehicle”, the real issue is the weight class, speed capabilities, and inertia of the two “vehicles”, and how they compare to the average weight, speed, and inertia of pedestrians.
A bicyclist will rarely exceed (or even reach) 20mph, and a person walking will generally walk between 2 and 5 mph. The only difference in weight between a bicyclist and a pedestrian is the weight of the actual bicycle – 10 pounds, maybe 15? Neither one belongs in the car-sized lane with the multi-ton machinery of automobiles, capable of much higher speeds and consequently unable to stop as quickly.
Simply put, if it’s between the sidewalk and the road, bikes belong on the sidewalk. Speed, weight, and simple likelihood of FATALITY should be the deciding factor, not “whether one considers a bicycle a ‘vehicle’”. Lives are at stake here, over a ridiculous misjudgment of literalism.
All the right of way laws in the world do not override inertia; a bike is not likely to kill a pedestrian; a car is very likely to kill a bicyclist; accidents happen.
In response to “Selfish Motorist”: following your logic, why should we permit motorcycles, Smart cars or Minis on roads with SUVs on them? Or for that matter, why should we permit SUVs on roads with cement trucks and 18-wheelers? In all of these cases, in the event of a collision the larger vehicle will obliterate the smaller one. You can’t overcome inertia. Lives are at stake. Accidents happen. Keep all but the 18-wheelers and cement trucks off the road. I guarantee you we will save lives.
Motorcycles are most hazardous to those who ride them (with the exception of the maniac kamikaze ninja riders who weave between the lanes of traffic at 100mph on the highways).
However once again, I assert that the standard of safety we should be considering FIRST is the likelihood of FATALITY resulting from a vehicle.
Motorcycles, Smart Cars, Mini’s, Pickup Trucks, Minivans, Sedans, SUV’s, Tractor Trailers, and Buses (did I forget any motorized, high-speed vehicles whose weight and potential speed could hinder their ability to stop quickly?) are all far more likely to kill the unseen bicyclist than that same bicyclist is likely to do much harm, if any, to a pedestrian. Pedestrians and bicycles belong together far more than motorized vehicles and bicycles. Peds and Bikes alike, allow for better reaction time by coexisting on sidewalks. Automobiles typically travel at the speed limit, which is usually above the capabilities of a bicycle, which is one more reason bikes do not belong in the lane.
Worse yet, is that the bicyclist in the road poses a danger to more than just him/herself; suddenly braking to avoid hitting a bicyclist in a lane built to fit the width of cars can cause a deadly multi-car pile-up. Even if I as a driver am cautious enough to look out for bicyclists, should I have to risk being rear ended?
Automobiles – all motor-driven vehicles – exceed the natural speeds that human reaction time was originally designed to respond efficiently to, and are thus in what I would call the “deadly” class. Bicycles aren’t likely to cause much injury than someone running at full speed without watching where they’re going.
(As for tractor-trailers and other gigantic vehicles, that’s a much worse danger all on its own. I don’t disagree with you; it’s just that our economy would virtually shut down without them. I’ve always thought, idealistically, that a separate road system should be built for those types of vehicles to protect the other drivers who wouldn’t stand a chance. But then again, this is the same line of thinking that makes me think that bikes should be off the roads altogether: safety for the one who doesn’t stand a chance in an accident.)
You assume that motorists must inevitably run into bicyclists because they are going more slowly. To avoid a collision with a same direction bicyclist the motorist must either:
Case 1. Do nothing but steer slightly to the left because the lane is wide enough to safely share.
Case 2. Make a partial or full lane change. This requires that there be enough time, base on the speed differential and the sight distance, to check that it is safe to move left.
Case 3. Slow down to the bicyclist’s speed. The sight distance to the bicycle must be greater than the braking distance.
Calculations and experience have shown that Cases 1 and 2 cover most situations. In case 3, collisions are generally avoided except when:
- the bicyclist is not detected soon enough (e.g., no lights at night) (this applies to cases 1 and 2 as well).
- the motorist is traveling much faster than is safe (generally well in excess of the posted speed limit)
- the motorist is inattentive (texting, etc.)
In other words, collisions occur because of illegal and dangerous behavior by one or more parties, not because bicyclists cannot safely co-exist on public roads.
I have yet to hear of one case of sudden braking to avoid bicyclist causing a multi-car pile-up. And there is a good reason: such crashes occur when motorists are following other motorists too closely. Motorists generally do not follow bicyclists — they pass at the first opportunity. When they do follow, it is at such a slow speed that there is no risk of collision due to sudden braking.
Case 1 – The last direction that I would ever want to swerve as a motorist is toward the left, toward oncoming traffic. Just for the convenience of a bicyclist to have waaaay more space than he/she needs, I’m expected to steer toward oncoming motor vehicle traffic? You assume there actually IS room for both a bike’s and car’s width in the lane, which there rarely is. The lane is built to accommodate the width of one motor vehicle, only.
Case 2 – Yes, as you said, this is dependent upon the circumstances working out in the motorist’s favor.
Case 3 – This is the aforementioned pile-up waiting to happen. You seem to assume that a motorist going a normal motor vehicle speed is going to have PLENTY of time to see a bicycle in the lane ahead, but this is ideal at best. Much more often, when driving the car that comes up directly behind the bicycle in a lane, it is more of a surprise and calls for fast reaction and braking, and cars behind that car often cannot see the bicyclist through that car.
The circumstances you use as reference place all of the burden of responsibility on the motorist, and do so in excess. In actual practice, most of the times that I’ve personally seen a bicyclist in traffic, they are happy to accept the privilege of being allowed to use the lane while ignoring all of the traffic rules they, themselves, are expected to adhere to.
Laws regarding safety should not be based on ideals unless they’re going to be enforced, and as you and I both know, they rarely are on the part of the bicyclist. They run stop signs, neglect to signal turns, and any other violation that they feel like doing on a moment’s notice, with almost complete impunity. When the laws of nature occasionally do kick in and they are injured because of it, it is the motorist who is blamed and suffers for it.
This general mindset of bicyclists’ denial that they are causing any risk is part of the problem here. It’s always either the fault of the motorist behind them, or the fault of the motorist behind the other motorist. But conveniently, never could it be the tiny-framed 2-wheeled slow-moving vehicle riding 15 mph in a 35mph zone in the car-sized lane, paying no attention to the rules save for the one that says that cars have to “share” the road with bikes that essentially monopolize it when they choose to occupy it.
Now, I can foresee us continuing not to see eye to eye on this, which I also foresaw before my last response as well. I do thank you for your respectful and well-thought-out responses, and appreciate you taking the time to make them.
One of the biggest reasons that bicycle safety and traffic safety in general continue to be an issue for all involved, is that so many people do not follow the laws. If no one follows the laws, the police can’t very well arrest/ticket everyone; they could never keep up. So instead, human as they are, the police overlook very common infractions and drivers continue to do as they always have gotten away with doing.
This is the biggest reason that despite having several strong points in the sense of “if only everyone did what they were supposed to this would all work out”, I’m opposed to bikes occupying car lanes because I accept and even expect that people WILL definitely continue to ignore rules en masse and will continue to get away with it.
Cars, buses, trucks, 18-wheelers, trash trucks, etc, are all already taking a gamble with life when they get on the road and reach most speed limits. (eg, 35mph is fast enough to wrap a ribcage around a steering wheel.) For that reason, cars are made to collapse in on themselves to absorb the level of shock that a collision of that class would induce.
But putting a much slower, more lightweight vehicle that offers no protection to its operator in the same lane with large tonnage of fast-moving machinery only exacerbates the situation.
This is classic… Selfish Motorist is claiming that because some motorists can’t drive safely cyclists should be removed from the equation so that they can hit other cars in peace.
How about driving safely as an answer? SUDDENLY braking for a bicycle that is directly in front of you? WHY would you have to SUDDENLY brake this high speed vehicle? Can a motorist avoid running into a postal truck? A garbage truck? A stop light? If your looking where you are going, you route around the cyclist. If your not tailgating the car in front of you (2-3 second gap… it’s THAT easy)… you don’t rear end them or run over the bike that the car in front of you went around safely.
That is why those of us in the know do NOT take “Share the lane” as “Ride in the gutter/glass/stormdrains so that a car can clip you, right hook you, and then claim you must have swerved”. We move further out into the traffic so you can SEE us in FRONT of you at a distance, and you can simply use your turn signal to indicate you are going to pass and either change lanes or plan your pass when safe to do so. It’s the Selfish Drivers that think “Share the Road” means “Get the Hell out of MY Way”. Sharing is actually aimed at the drivers… not the cyclists. When I’m biking instead of driving I might impact your total trip time by almost… 5-10 seconds overall… maybe. More than likely not at all, since drivers with this attitude wind it out when they pass and get caught at a stop light 100 feet down the road. Ones that maintain a safe distance from all traffic in front of them (2-3 second gap in the dry daylight, 6 in rain, 10 in snow), when encountering a cyclist that is riding about where the vehicles right tire track is, rarely find their time effected at all. It’s just those drivers that are doing things besides driving, and driving in a dangerous manner for whatever reason… late for something? To cool to follow the rules? Got that 500hp motor and need to show it off in a 30mph speed zone?
The motorist is almost ALWAYS at fault and rarely if ever gets as much as a traffic infraction issued when KILLING a cyclist. Often the cyclist is issued one that got hit just to justify NOT charging the motorist, assumed guilty for being in an out group.
It’s human psychology and it’s ignorance on motorists part that gets cyclists killed. The motorist is the one driving the deadly vehicle, they are the one that should be shouldering the responsibility for their actions when operating it. You don’t blame outlaw Quicky Marts because people rob them… you blame the people committing the act, NOT the victim.
Aptly named “Selfish Motorist” states that the standard to be considered first is the likelihood of a fatality resulting from a vehicle. By this criterion, motor vehicles should be banned because they have a much higher likelihood of causing a fatality than a bicycle. Also, consider that in 2007 there were over 35,000 US motorist fatalities compared to about 700 cyclist fatalities. Again, if fatalities are the main factor then the largest impact is obtained by reducing motor-vehicle use.
The my-mass-is-bigger-than-your-mass approach to crash dynamics implied by “Selfish Motorist” is also a gross oversimplification. For one thing, a cyclist hit by a car absorbs only a small fraction of the energy originally possessed by the car. The forces and energies involved in two motor vehicles colliding are far higher and mitigate the protective features of the vehicle bodies (which is how you get 35,000 fatalities per year). In addition, the higher mass sometimes works against motorists. Motorists are often crushed between parts of their own vehicle body. Rollovers are a common crash type, and a bicycle rollover is not going to be as serious as a SUV rollover. Although less common, motorists also either burn or drown while trapped in their vehicles.
Crash data indicate that motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians all have roughly similar fatality rates that fall in the general range between 0.1 and 1.0 fatalities per million hours of travel. Motorcyclists, in contrast, are more like 10-15 fatalities per million hours. For reasons that are clearly not understood by “Selfish Motorist”, crash data also show that cyclists who use sidewalks are actually more likely to be hit by a motor vehicle than those using the road.
The real problem here is that motorists think a driver’s license is a deed to the roadway when it really is just a permit to operate a piece of hazardous machinery.
There are some uninformed motorists who don’t notice bicycles or believe that their size gives them the right of way. Bikes are small and hard to notice. It might improve over time, but there will always be ignorant people.
The biker should take responsibility for safety. Motorists should too, but many won’t.
– know that some of the cars have “Uninformed Motorists” and watch out for them
– stay off the sidewalk where it is harder to be seen at cross walks, and easy to run over pedestrians.
– have a mirror and watch out for vehicles passing too closely
– stay alert, be prepared to stop if you get cut-off, and slow down at intersections.
When motorists claim that bikes are walking path toys that should stay off the roads they are not selfish. They have not fully considered the benefits of cycling, and don’t realize that bikes are also a practical form of transportation. Bikes are better than cars in some cases. Bikes don’t pollute, are easy to park, are efficient and low cost, and are faster where there is lots of traffic.
If informed motorists can not be convinced that bicycles should be on the road I suppose that their vehicle makes them feel powerful and putting down bikes helps them feel better about their time spent in traffic jams, pollution, fuel costs and/or obesity.
This is a life and death issue.
Some bicyclists break laws a lot (and often shouldn’t).
Most motorists in Minneapolis drive unsafely.
And then people get upon these message boards and try justifying this stuff. Op- ed pieces are written about how “Bikes should get off the road” and “I’m going to run you over”. Cut it out, damnit. People are dying here (in Minneapolis a biker was killed today May 20; elsewhere in MN a biker was killed May 16, 2009; fatalities happen nearly every month. We who pay attention know people are dying.)
Motorists who take that cavalier attitude are basically homicides waiting to happen. Your cool intellectual analysis doesn’t clear your blame, and your “get off my roads or else” attitude makes people wish you were dead instead of your next victim. You’re going to kill a human being.
You should know by now this is not the way, tsk, tsk. If you want to be killing people you’re, um, wrong.
But who knows, maybe you’re right bicycles don’t belong on the road. Same thing with pedestrians crossing the road, motorcycles, mopeds, subcompact cars, Amish buggies, cops on bikes, joggers, etc. It could be argued that people who might fall to harm or death (ie all people) should be prohibited from being on the road.
Do bicyclists have to start carrying firearms to protect themselves? Motorists are trying to hit us. Really.
I have no problem with bicycles on the road, AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRAVELING AT THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT, nuff said, end of discussion.
“dude” helpfully points out a frequent misconception: speed limits are maximums, not minimums. In some places the bicyclists might be the only ones obeying the speed rules. Enough said.
If we we go by the logic of motorists we get the assumption that bicyclists don’t belong on the roadways with motor vehicles. I we go by cyclists, then we must allow all vehicles on the roadways including but not limited to Gulf carts, Go carts, Lawn mowers, Segways, Farm equipment such as, tractors, combines, planters, manure spreaders, Bobcats/skidstears, dozers, treaded vehicles, as well as non-treaded vehicles, Aircraft, aircraft maintenance vehicles, and any kind of 4 wheelers, dirt bikes,snowmobiles, as these are all vehicles? Bicycles belong on sidewalks where it is less likely that fatal accidents occur between pedestrians, and bicyclists. The roadways were built for motor vehicles of a specific type, and weight, not for pedestrians, and bicyclists. Bicyclists just want to claim they should have rights to ride whereever they damn well please!Their logic is poor at best! Why should we put both poor drivers, and poor bicyclists together and expect anything less then ideal effects by either one? Why not require bicyclists to be insured, licensed, and registered, and held accountable as the motorists, to help pay for the service that will be required for accident recovery personnel? After all, If they waant equal rights, shouldn’t they have to pay equally, and be held equally responsible? You can’t have it both ways?
That is called having your cake and eating it too!
That’s why cops give out tickets to motorists driving to slowly its just as dangerous as driving to fast.
As a cyclist and a motor vehicle operator, with a few years of experience, I feel that I must agree with Informed Motorist–
The biker should take responsibility for safety. Motorists should too, but many won’t.
– know that some of the cars have “Uninformed Motorists” and watch out for them
– stay off the sidewalk where it is harder to be seen at cross walks, and easy to run over pedestrians.
– have a mirror and watch out for vehicles passing too closely
– stay alert, be prepared to stop if you get cut-off, and slow down at intersections.
All of which I do. The biggest thing is to USE YOUR MIRROR, to monitor the traffic behind you, just like you would if you were driving.
I also do anything else I can do to increase my visibility—reflective lighted vest,plenty of lights on my bike.
I don’t feel that bicycling is any more dangerous than just about anything else a person can do.
I also feel that most accidents are the result of illegal and dangerous behavior by one or more parties, not because bicyclists cannot safely co-exist on public roads, stated above in one of the previous posts.
Reading comments from ‘Selfish’, ‘Bub’ ‘Dude’ and others shows that our minimal standards for licensing motor vehicle operators are totally inadequate. People, please read your state’s highway traffic act, or at least look at the pictures in the driver’s handbook. You were supposed to know this stuff before you got behind the wheel.
If you don’t like sharing the road with cyclists, stay on the interstates and controlled access highways. That’s where bicycles aren’t allowed. By your attitudes you’re not fit to drive anywhere else.
Living near Seattle, I have to deal with bicyclists nearly everyday. Sadly about a third of them are less than ambassadors to your cause. They cut into crosswalks at lights to avoid the light, completely ignore stop signs, sometimes ride 2-4 riders abreast on a roadway where cars cannot safely pass, and when riding on paths they tend to assume they can just blitz across a roadway without regard for any approaching cars. While in some instances they can have right of way, it needs to be tempered with some wisdom. As a driver, sometimes the only savior is defensive driving. Unfortunately a large percentage of cyclists practice offensive riding. Realistically, there needs to be better education for cyclists and motorists alike in regards to bicycles.
All of these negative comments I have read are just nonsense, and really Stupid. I, myself, am NOT one of those careless cyclists who seem to think they can just do whatever they want and not face any consequences. I ride with traffic, on the Right side of the road, walk across crosswalks and ”Take the lane” when it is too narrow to safely share with a 5 foot wide automobile. Cars don’t kill people, it’s the incompetent, rude and Ignorant,careless driver’s in cars that do kill people.
Get over yourself’s and share the roadway with other’s, or try riding a bike. Enough said.
[...] deserve to use the road”. (for a good roundup of this and other similar issues see bicycledriving.org) There are certain elements of truth to this — bicyclists don’t purchase gas, [...]
CE Benz, I too live in Seattle, and I know what you mean there are A LOT of bicyclists who don’t obey any rules, and it is annoying. However, I don’t think that’s what we’re arguing. Sidewalks are for things without wheels, people. Bike’s were on the roads long before cars. In many areas there aren’t even sidewalks for bikes to be on. Or, have you ever been to new york city? Do you think a bike could make it through the sidewalks there? Also just as an aside, I think some biker’s do register their bike with the city. I think bike’s should be ticketed just the same as cars. However, I think there are a lot of asshole driver’s out there who do force bikes off the road and they deserve tickets for it.
Dennis, correct me if I’m wrong but I have seen back hoes drive (at probably 5 mph) where cars had to wait to go around. I’m pretty sure a lot of those things can go on the road if they want, most likely they aren’t practical. I have even seen a video of a man driving a lawn mower on a rural road with a beer, and get pulled over and given a DUI.
I live in Denver, land of the bicyclist… if there is a bike lane, great.. have at it.. but as you all know, most roads are built to have parking on each side, and then room for one car. They simply aren’t constructed for both types of vehicles… unless speed limit maximums are reduced significantly, having a vehicle going less than half the speed of another in the same direction is insanity. Of course it would be a better world if more people rode bikes to work, etc… gas prices are ridiculous and it’s horrible for the planet. But since most drivers are pretty indifferent to bicyclists, and at least a third of bicyclists fail to observe even the most basic rules of the road, having them only ride on safer roads with observed bike lanes makes sense. It isn’t that motorists are being rude, it’s that cars used to much lighter, slower and easier to coexist with bikes. Times change. Roads haven’t. Period.
@Greg — Is it obvious that “having a vehicle going less than half the speed of another in the same direction is insanity”? In your example, with one travel lane and on street parking, how do you get into the parking? You stop (0 mph) and back up (negative mph). So how come it’s perfectly sane to have motorists parallel parking (or double-parking), but somehow insane to have bicyclists traveling much faster?
Also, bicycles are narrow. If the travel lane and parking lane are a just a few feet wider than the minimums in the design manuals, as is often the case, especially if there is only one travel lane, there is plenty of room for motorists to pass bicyclists just by crowding toward the center of the road, even if the bicyclist is safely outside the door zone.
If you are concerned about bicyclists breaking the traffic law — as indeed am I — please tell Denver police and politicians that they should enforce the law even-handedly, including ticketing bicyclists. Also make sure they have some plainclothes officers on bikes in case there are still motorists who don’t know that bicyclists have equal rights.
To selfish motorist. I see what you’re trying to say between the lines here. O.K. that’s fine. I’ll say it IN the lines. If you want to try to use a fifty cent word where it doesn’t really apply I’m game. Inertia, often measured in foot pounds of force is indeed on the side of the larger vehicle. Because of thick headed motorists who believe the way you do, (Riding on the sidewalk is Illegal where I live by the way) I have taken to carrying something in my tire bag that greatly evens up the disparity in vehicle weight. If you’re going to try to scare or “graze” me with your car/truck, you had better kill me. If I catch back up to you which is what happens most of the time, my inertia equalizer will be used to make certain you think twice before doing it again.
I don’t like to come off this way. You must understand however, no matter how you feel about my bicycle being on “YOUR” road, you have no right whether legal, ethical, or moral to use your vehicle as a weapon for your inability to maintain your temper, or, to leave enough time for yourself so that seeing a bicycle riding along is not going to turn your face red and foam to leave your mouth.
I’ve had too many occasions wherein a man or woman who’s in dire need of anger management classes think it’s perfectly O.K. to throw things out the window at me, honk their horn, screech the tires by dangerous braking, or even to actually hit me with their car. These were all occasions where I was thoroughly obeying all traffic laws pertaining to the jurisdiction I’m riding in.
Here’s a good rule of thumb no matter how you feel about bike vs motor vehicle laws and venues. Treat others the way you would want to be treated yourself. It’s quite simple actually. And if you’re really that mad because you think that bicycle is going to make you late for work, then you need to learn to leave yourself enough time so that this type of stress ceases to occur. This is as a matter of fact the only thing you have control over in said situation.
Please! What would you do if it were your child on that bicycle? Remember, DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. It’s an easy one to follow really.
Look at the accident statistics. Provided a bicycle has adequate visibility, it is relatively rare that they get hit from the rear. Most accidents happen when a vehicle is entering or leaving the stream of traffic. Statistics will show that bicyclists on the sidewalk are more likely to get hit by a car than those on the street are. Sidewalks cross driveways and streets. Drivers are not looking for a rapid vehicle on a sidewalk.
The important thing for the motorist to realize is that the bicyclist may not know the safest thing to do. The bicyclist may be a child or developmentally disabled. You can no more demand that they perform to rule than you can require safety training for deer.
When you get behind the wheel of a car, you might as well be putting your finger onto the trigger of a loaded gun. Presumably, you have a license to control the hazard. Please remember what it said in your driver’s manual about slow moving vehicles, like bicycles. “When approaching a slow moving vehicle from the rear, slow down and stay a safe distance behind until there is enough space to safely pass on the left.”