The Marginalization of Bicyclists

[Bob Sutterfield]

Do you wonder why many people consider bicyclists second-class road users?
Have you ever heard someone say "Streets are for cars, get out of the way!"

Here's the history of the erosion of cyclists' rights, what difference it makes, and what we can do to restore them.

http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists

[Michael Graff]

I think Keri addresses the impact to society in her video, such as more civility between road users:

http://iamtraffic.org/news-views/our-vision-video-from-the-colloquium/

Those of us who use the full lane when warranted know what our impact is on traffic: other drivers change lanes sooner and more smoothly.  Fewer close calls, fewer honks, fewer intersection conflicts, fewer close passes.  Motorists behave so much better around us.

It's hard to see how this improvement stops working if all current cyclists did it.  Or even if all potential cyclists did it.

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

Outstanding job by Bob Shanteau.  This should be required reading for all bicyclists, advocates and lawmakers.  

But I think one important question was not addressed:

What would the practical impact be on traffic/society if most bicyclists used the full lane much of the time?

It's an important question because most people who support FTR laws probably believe the answer is an unacceptable situation.  That needs addressing.

Serge

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Sauerwald Mark]

Bob

I agree that we need to repeal FTR, but I think that it will have little effect on cyclist or motorist behaviour.

I believe that much of the friction comes about as a result of differing views as to the purpose of the rules of the road.   I believe that most motorists believe that the rules of the road are there to maximize the throughput of the roads, and to allow them to travel as quickly as possible from one point to another.   Infrastructure like stop signs exist to regulate the flow through conflict points, allowing traffic to continue to move in all directions.   Speed limits indicate the recommended speed through an area which will allow for free flow of traffic,

The traffic laws are there to increase his speed, while providing reasonable protection from crashes which might cause damage to his vehicle.   This attitude is reinforced by the infrastructure that we create, with slip lanes allowing motorists to make right hand turns at an intersection without slowing down, and clover leaf intersections with highways, implying that highway speeds can be maintained on the city surface streets.  The existing infrastructure gives the message that maximizing traffic flow is the most important thing.

Most cyclists are less concerned about damage to their bicycles, or speed than they are about damage to their bodies in the event of a crash, as a result, most cyclists believe that the purpose of the rules of the road is to maximize safety.  We have stop signs which force users to stop, and consider conditions prior to entering potentially conflicted spaces, we have speed limits which indicate the Maximum safe speeds in an area.  Many cyclists believe that the FTR laws are for their own protection - if they stay out of the way, they won't be hurt.

Now when you mix the two, the cyclist reads the rules and follows them with his safety blinders on.  The savy cyclist will position himself on the road in the most visible location, and well away from parked cars.   He will ride at a rate below the maximum speed limit.   When a motorist comes up to this cyclist, his thought is that the cyclist must be breaking the rules - he is 'blocking' the road, and going way below the posted speed - clearly the cyclist is doing something wrong since he is slowing traffic!

I believe that the biggest difference between riding a bicycle in North America and in those cities thought of as 'cycle friendly' such as Amsterdam or Copenhagen is not so much infrastructure per se, but rather the attitude of most motorists, who do not expect to be able to drive fast in a city center, where they are sharing the road with bicycles and pedestrians.  This attitude is reinforced for them with the infrastructure that they confront, where there are far fewer slip lanes, and far more bike paths.

We get the attitude of 'Streets are for cars, get out of the way' because in so much of this country, we have designed the streets for cars, with little consideration for other users.  FTR is a part of that mis-education, but before we can see meaningful reform, we need to clearly set what the priorities of our roadway infrastructure are.  Are we more concerned with speed than safety? - if safety is the key, we need to start designing infrastructure, writing and enforcing laws with that as our priority.   Repealing FTR would be a start, but it is just the start.

Mark

---

From: Bob Sutterfield <b...@sutterfields.us>
To: Chainguard <chain...@yahoogroups.com>; BicycleDriving <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>; BicycleCommuterGroup <BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com>; bicyclelifestyle <bicyclel...@googlegroups.com>; bicyclec...@googlegroups.com; sfbike list <sfb...@lists.riseup.net>; svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org
Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2013 8:13 PM
Subject: [SVBC general] The Marginalization of Bicyclists

Do you wonder why many people consider bicyclists second-class road users?
Have you ever heard someone say "Streets are for cars, get out of the way!"

Here's the history of the erosion of cyclists' rights, what difference it makes, and what we can do to restore them.

http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SVBC general discussion list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to svbcbikes+...@bikesiliconvalley.org.
To post to this group, send email to svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/bikesiliconvalley.org/group/svbcbikes/?hl=en-US.
 
 

[Sauerwald Mark]

I object to the suggestion that a cyclist should maintain at least 65% of the traffic flow speed.   I think that as a cyclist you maintain the speed that is comfortable for you.   I agree that here is the bay area we have a problem with overly aggressive motorists, and a law enforcement mentality which refuses to deal with them - this results in an increased level of death and mayhem on our streets which we as a society have chosen to accept.

I also object to the suggestion that you should be riding with one eye in your rear view mirror ro watch for overtaking traffic.   It is the responsibility of the overtaking traffic to provide adequate clearance to the overtaken vehicle.  

According to you I "MUST out if necessity (and this warped car centric culture and law enforcement) use your mirrors every 5 seconds tops and watch traffic behind you with same diligence as traffic ahead. Be prepared to quickly move right." 

 

I reject this thought, since I feel that I am far safer keeping my attention ahead of me, than trying to weave back and forth on the roadway to allow (and encourage) motorists to violate the law by driving faster than is safe and to pass closely.

What we need to do is to work on lobbying our law enforcement and legislators to enforce the laws that provide us as cyclists with safety - in particular, speed laws and safe passing laws.   The message that we give to bay area aggressive drivers when we do not enforce those laws is that it is OK to drive at 45mph in a 25mph zone, to buzz cyclists, and if a cyclist is not in a (dangerous) bike lane, it is their own fault if they get injured or killed.   If you clip and injure a cyclist, it's OK since they should have gotten out of your way.

I am old enough to remember when there were cases of rape reported in the newspaper, and they would mention how the victim had been dressed provocatively, implying that she had brought on the attack herself.  This is no longer considered acceptable.   The same thing happens today with cyclists - when a cyclist is injured, the newpapers will report if they were wearing a helmet before asking if the motorist had provided adequate space when passing, or in the recent case of the Hersevoorts (  http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Dublin-bicyclist-killed-by-car-is-IDd-4591284.php#ixzz2VrgwF2YL ) if the cyclists might have been riding two abreast, or in the roadway, rather than on the shoulder - behaviors which  are as legal as wearing a mini-skirt and a low cut blouse.   

We as cyclists are marginalized, and our safety is being jeopardized - we should not accept that quietly.

Mark Sauerwald

---

From: "sunnyval...@yahoo.com" <sunnyval...@yahoo.com>
To: "b...@sutterfields.us" <b...@sutterfields.us>; "bicyclel...@googlegroups.com" <bicyclel...@googlegroups.com>; "chain...@yahoogroups.com" <chain...@yahoogroups.com>; "bicycle...@googlegroups.com" <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>; "BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com" <BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com>; "bicyclec...@googlegroups.com" <bicyclec...@googlegroups.com>; "sfb...@lists.riseup.net" <sfb...@lists.riseup.net>; "svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org" <svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:33 AM
Subject: RE: [SVBC general] Re: The Marginalization of Bicyclists

In heavier fast traffic with typically a lot of lane changing by more aggressive motor vehicle drivers, you know the type almost road rage level driving, cyclists not maintaining the suggested 65% of traffic flow speed put themselves into serious hazard regardless of lane position. Agreed taking the lane REDUCES observant motor vehicle chances they will try take the lane with cyclists present. However, consistent with article “What an RAF pilot can teach us about being safe on the road” taking the lane position puts cyclist in position to be more severely injured or killed from the agressive motor vehicle driver that is obvilious to cyclist and type convinced the cyclist will see the approaching car out of the eyes in back of their heads and be able to swerve to righ curb in nick of time. (If they care anyway, as agreesive drivers are so self centered and overestimating on their abilities they value their speed and skill over others lives. Pedistrians and cyclists pay dearly.) If you chose to ride streets with traffic much faster than your abilility to keep up you MUST out if necessity (and this warped car centric culture and law enforcement) use your mirrors every 5 seconds tops and watch traffic behind you with same diligence as traffic ahead. Be prepared to quickly move right. It is tough riding and the moment you let down your guard that’s when that Godzilla car or bus driver (Googzilla in my most recent lapse) will strike. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone

[Michael Graff]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:33 AM, <sunnyval...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you chose to ride streets with traffic much faster than your abilility to keep up you MUST out if necessity (and this warped car centric culture and law enforcement) use your mirrors every 5 seconds tops and watch traffic behind you with same diligence as traffic ahead. Be prepared to quickly move right.

Um, no.  My cruising bike speed is in the low-to-mid teens, which means EVERY street I ride on has traffic much faster than my ability to keep up. I cannot recall ever having to "quickly move right" because of approaching traffic.

It's just the opposite.  If I'm controlling a narrow travel lane, it's precisely because there's nowhere to the right that I could quickly move.  And because I'm in a highly visible position in that narrow lane, approaching traffic has plenty of time to see me and change lanes.  Which is exactly what they do, by the dozens or hundreds, every day.

Riding this way drastically reduces my conflicts with all other traffic.  Cycling is truly fun and joyous when we stop letting ourselves be marginalized and start driving our bikes like the legitimate traffic that we are.

(That doesn't mean I stubbornly block as much traffic as possible.  If there's a bunch of traffic stacked up behind me, I'll find a place to momentarily pull off to let them pass.  I don't want to be the leader of an impromptu parade.)

Of course, I had to learn to ride this way.  I'll admit it takes a leap of faith (almost literally) to try controlling a travel lane.  And I distinctly remember the "AHA!" moment when I realized NOT controlling a travel lane was putting myself in danger.  But it's scary at first.  Then it's amazing.

I try not to sound like a religious zealot when I talk about how wonderful it is to take control of our cycling environment, but it's difficult to be unenthusiastic.  I feel like I've discovered a miracle cure.  I want everybody to know this wonderful thing, yet so many people reject it.

[Michael Graff]

I'm sorry Patrick, you make cycling sound horribly depressing.  We're not picking on you personally, we're rejecting your description of a cycling dystopia.  We reject your horror stories because they don't happen to us much, at least not anymore.  They don't happen to us much, because we've learned how to work with traffic, not against it.  We learned to work with traffic because working against it was so often unpleasant and scary.  We sought out that knowledge because we enjoy cycling, and wanted to have fewer scary moments.  We still have the occasional encounter with the occasional jerk, but those are rare, and we know how to anticipate them and how to manage them.

We want more people to find the joy of cycling.  We want more people to learn how to make our transportation network work for them, not against them.  We want to ride today, and we want to make tomorrow even better.

As you know, you ride your bike on the roads you have, not the roads you might want or wish to have at a later time.  But we also advocate for better roadway designs, and we're not shy about criticizing poor ones.

And no, we don't go out of our way looking for the biggest, scariest, busiest roads to show how macho we are.  But if we do use some of those roads some of the time, we know what to expect and how to deal with it.  Many of us are not very fast or athletic, so no special skills are necessary to enjoy cycling the way we do.

Please come sing "kumbaya" with us.  Please look at stuff like http://cyclingsavvy.org/ and http://iamtraffic.org/ and http://commuteorlando.com/ and http://mighkwilson.com/2009/10/which-cycling-politics-doom-or-possibility/ (If people can cycle successfully in Orlando, FL, we Californians can, too.)

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM, <sunnyval...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi, The 65% came from conversation in the link this discussion was referring too. I agree 65% per say may be a bit too high, but the concept is correct. I think no one in this list takes a main traffic lane on Lawrence etc expressway in rush hour for any extended distance and certainly with constant looking in rear mirror. To some degree one has to constantly look to rear in mirror this holds for Wolfe and Fair oaks between El Camino and 101 in Rush hour. Chevrons on Wolfe are generally accepted as a failure ( reason for bike lanes further on) for rush hour because of speed differential and heavy weaving traffic. Mirror is essential to monitor traffic behind without sending the head turning signal that you may be changing lane position. No this is not fear, its due diligence. When you ride more directly exposed, you must remain diligent what's going on behind. Few months back Khalil ( very respected LCI from New Mexico) made observation that aggressive lane positioning resulted in fewer bike - car collisions but the injury level was much much higher. I agree culture is too car centric and I dream of laws like in Northern Europe that presumes the bigger vehicle at fault first till proven otherwise. In this area, police will never cite a motorist passing too close to cyclist infraction even with perfect video and are extremely anti bikers in the enforcement. It's no surprise and sad to me many cyclists choose to ignore traffic laws. I am vainly hoping both cultures can be changed. If you chose to ride a more exposed position, which some road require it, for your own safety check to rear diligently and remember to retreat to right in case a motorist misses you. I strongly disagree and find it counter productive to progress in reversing anti-bike culture biases with the with blanket polarizing characterizations some are making (as to mongering, laws on proper passing distance, bike lanes, etc) Best Regards Patrick Grant

Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone

---

From: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>;
To: Patrick Grant <sunnyval...@yahoo.com>;

Cc: b...@sutterfields.us <b...@sutterfields.us>; bicyclel...@googlegroups.com <bicyclel...@googlegroups.com>; chain...@yahoogroups.com <chain...@yahoogroups.com>; bicycle...@googlegroups.com <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>; BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com <BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com>; bicyclec...@googlegroups.com <bicyclec...@googlegroups.com>; sfb...@lists.riseup.net <sfb...@lists.riseup.net>; svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org <svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org>;

Subject: Re: [SVBC general] Re: The Marginalization of Bicyclists

Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 4:46:30 PM

[Herman F. Ebeling, Jr.]

Mark,

That is very well said.

Sadly, Patrick's assertion that we as cyclists "have" to keep one eye glued on our mirrors and watch approaching/overtaking traffic every five minutes is a fallacy. As I said, if we did that we'd never make any "headway" on the road. As we'd be spending equal amounts of time watching where we're going as well as where we have been. I don't know of any motorists who do that, whether they're driving a car or a motorcycle or a scooter. Or is Patrick trying to suggest that the operator's of motorcycles and/or scooters also check their rearview mirrors every five seconds to keep track of approaching/overtaking traffic?

Do we, sadly, live in a world where the car is king? Sadly, yes we do. Do we, sadly, live in a world where the "deck is stacked against us?" Again yes we do, especially given that far too often the police automatically blame the cyclist anytime there is a car v bike crash. In some cases as I am sure we all have seen taking the word of the motorist(s) for what happened long before they even talk to the cyclist. That is if the cyclist is even either still alive or hasn't been "hauled off" to the hospital.

And I agree with you, in fact isn't it coded in most if NOT all states Motor Vehicle Code that the OVERTAKING vehicle can only do so when it is SAFE to do so? AND that they and NOT the vehicle being overtaken has the greater responsibility?

Exactly, and IF I am not mistaken, wasn't (and I am NOT trying to blame the victim) part of the conflict that the cyclist up (for me as I am in Florida) in Maine that he was riding too far to the right in order to (in his words) allow other traffic to "safely pass him." Had he been taking the lane he would have been safer and yes, I understand that in the case of Captain Jim, that the motorist in question would still have been fuming.

Not too long ago I found myself in a similar situation with an impatient motorist. I was driving my bicycle in a safe and legal manner. When I had a motorist from out of state not only honk at me, but aggressively lay on their horn. I will admit that I employed a certain non-verbal mode of communication to communicate to them that:

a) I knew they were back there and
b) that I was NOT going anywhere
c) they eventually got the message and changed lanes and passed me

However as they were passing me either the driver or their passenger yells out the window "you're not a car." I had to laugh at that.

And even though technically speaking horn blowers particularly those who incessantly lay on their horns fall in the category of an aggressive driver. I actually like them, as if they are honking at me, then they SEE me. Otherwise why are they laying on their horn?

I also agree with you, in that by "condoning" motorists doing 45 in a 25MPH zone is what is leading to the chaos, and death and destruction on our nations highways. As IF I am not mistaken aren't there some states that either set or raise their speed limits NOT on what is safe for a particular road, but based on the mean speed of travel by the majority of traffic? Should we really be setting speeds limits based NOT on what is safe for a given road but rather on the fact that most of the drivers are already committing an illegal act by speeding?

As I said in another post, what I would like to see ALL cities across the country do is to lower AND enforce a 20 - 25MPH speed limit within city limits. And only allow higher speeds on the Interstates. As do people really need to get across town in 60-seconds or less? Why do we tolerate motorists going so fast, and thus endangering NOT only cyclists lives, but EVERYONE'S lives who use our roads on a daily basis.

Like you Mark, I remember those days. Sadly, it seems as if cyclists as a group that it is okay to discriminate against. I'd like to know why that is.

There was a very good article in Bicycle Times about how lawyer's and the courts devalued our lives/safety by moving car v bike crashes from the criminal courts to the civil courts. Because unfortunately back in the 70's when the move was made and cycling was gaining popularity. There were "so many" car v bike crashes that they apparently were "clogging" the court systems.

Whereas the irony is that IF they'd done the smart thing and treated them as serious events that they are/were we'd be better off then we are today.

It was a very good article, I'll dig out the link and post in later.

---------------------------------
Herman F. Ebeling, Jr.
Live Long and Prosper

Jun 12, 2013 11:12:53, mark_sa...@yahoo.com wrote:

>I object to the suggestion that a cyclist should maintain at least 65% of the traffic flow speed.   I think that as a cyclist you maintain the speed that is comfortable for you.   I agree that here is the bay area we have a problem with overly aggressive motorists, and a law enforcement mentality which refuses to deal with them - this results in an increased level of death and mayhem on our streets which we as a society have chosen to accept.

>I also object to the suggestion that you should be riding with one eye in your rear view mirror to watch for overtaking traffic.   It is the responsibility of the overtaking traffic to provide adequate clearance to the overtaken vehicle.  ;

>According to you I "MUST out of necessity (and this warped car centric culture and law enforcement) use your mirrors every 5 seconds tops and watch traffic behind you with same diligence as traffic ahead. Be prepared to quickly move right." ; ;I reject this thought, since I feel that I am far safer keeping my attention ahead of me, than trying to weave back and forth on the roadway to allow (and encourage) motorists to violate the law by driving faster than is safe and to pass closely.

>What we need to do is to work on lobbying our law enforcement and legislators to enforce the laws that provide us as cyclists with safety - in particular, speed laws and safe passing laws.   The message that we give to bay area aggressive drivers when we do not enforce those laws is that it is OK to drive at 45mph in a 25mph zone, to buzz cyclists, and if a cyclist is not in a (dangerous) bike lane, it is their own fault if they get injured or killed.   If you clip and injure a cyclist, it's OK since they should have gotten out of your way.

>I am old enough to remember when there were cases of rape reported in the newspaper, and they would mention how the victim had been dressed provocatively, implying that she had brought on the attack herself.  This is no longer considered acceptable.   The same thing happens today with cyclists - when a cyclist is injured, the newpapers will report if they were wearing a helmet before asking if the motorist had provided adequate space when passing, or in the recent case of the Hersevoorts ( ; ;http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Dublin-bicyclist-killed-by-car-is-IDd-4591284.php#ixzz2VrgwF2YL ) if the cyclists might have been riding two abreast, or in the roadway, rather than on the shoulder - behaviors which ; are as legal as wearing a mini-skirt and a low cut blouse.   ;

>We as cyclists are marginalized, and our safety is being jeopardized - we should not accept that quietly.

>Mark Sauerwald

> > From: "sunnyval...@yahoo.com" sunnyval...@yahoo.com>
> > To: "b...@sutterfields.us" b...@sutterfields.us>; "bicyclel...@googlegroups.com" bicyclel...@googlegroups.com>; "chain...@yahoogroups.com" chain...@yahoogroups.com>; "bicycle...@googlegroups.com" bicycle...@googlegroups.com>; "BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com" BicycleCom...@yahoogroups.com>; "bicyclec...@googlegroups.com" bicyclec...@googlegroups.com>; "sfb...@lists.riseup.net" sfb...@lists.riseup.net>; "svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org"
svbc...@bikesiliconvalley.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:33 AM
> > Subject: RE: [SVBC general] Re: The Marginalization of Bicyclists
> >
> > In heavier fast traffic with typically a lot of lane changing by more aggressive motor vehicle drivers, you know the type almost road rage level driving, cyclists not maintaining the suggested 65% of traffic flow speed put themselves into serious hazard regardless of lane position.
> >

> > Agreed taking the lane REDUCES observant motor vehicle chances they will try take the lane with cyclists present. However, consistent with article “What an RAF pilot can teach us about being safe on the road” taking the lane position puts cyclist in position to be more severely injured or killed from the aggressive motor vehicle driver that is oblivious to cyclist and type convinced the cyclist will see the approaching car out of the eyes in back of their heads and be able to swerve to right curb in nick of time. (If they care anyway, as aggressive drivers are so self centered and overestimating on their abilities they value their speed and skill over others lives. Pedestrians and cyclists pay dearly.)
> >
> > If you chose to ride streets with traffic much faster than your ability to keep up you MUST out if necessity (and this warped car centric culture and law enforcement) use your mirrors every 5 seconds tops and watch traffic behind you with same diligence as traffic ahead. Be prepared to quickly move right.

[Herman F. Ebeling, Jr.]

Michael,

Again, I couldn't agree with you more. Cycling is NOT the dangerous or complicated act that Patrick for whatever reason is trying to make it seem. The key to riding in an assertive fashion is COMMUNICATION. Singling lane changes, singling turns and stops, as well as, as novel of a concept as it is for some, obeying the rules of the roads.

Other then maybe three foot (or more depending on the state) passing rules if we repealed FRAP and MBL and other bicycle specific laws in favor of the preexisting slow moving vehicle laws I think that the roads would be a LOT safer for EVERYONE.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use our rearview mirrors, we should and I do everyday. I'm just saying that we do not, no matter how much Patrick may claim, we do NOT need to check our mirrors every five seconds. As, I've said if we did that we'd never be able to make any headway on the roads as our attention would be too focused on what his happening behind us.

Michael, could you please ask Patrick if he does that when he is driving his car/truck or motorcycle?

---------------------------------
Herman F. Ebeling, Jr.
Live Long and Prosper

[Bob Sutterfield]

Here's the first installment of that parallel history of incivility:

http://iamtraffic.org/encouragement/the-stories-we-tell-part-one

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Adam <awen...@gmail.com> wrote:

A parallel history of how bullying behavior became socially acceptable among motorists would be interesting, as well.