Normal vs. the law

Mighk Wilson, of Cycling Savvy (among other fine sites), put this on Facebook this week: 

An idea for discussing lane control with non-cyclists (and perhaps even cyclists): I've tried this a couple times and it certainly gets people thinking.

I either show them an image or video of a lane-controlling cyclist on a high-speed arterial, or just describe it, then ask: "If you saw that, what would you think?"

Of course, the usual answer includes terms like "crazy" and/or "dangerous."

Then I ask: "What if you saw this once a month?"
"Once a week?"
"Once a day?"
"Every hour?"
"Every ten minutes?" (pause and let them think/answer after each)

It gets them to realize that perhaps their perception of what is PROPER is based on what they believe is NORMAL, and not based on the law, data or reasoning.

Read that last sentence again. Many motorists don't know the finer points of the law, so they follow what they imagine the law should be based on what they see as "normal." They were taught to stay out of the way of cars when they rode bicycles as small children (insert digression about their maturity here if you like), so they think normal is "bikes stay out of the way of cars."

Never mind that there is exactly nothing about the car that gives it any priority over any other road user (unless that car happens to be equipped with "first responder" lights and siren). Never mind that it is quite dangerous for me to hug the fog line (that white line at the edge of the road), because it puts me out of sight of the overtaking road user and/or invites that road user to squeeze past me in MY LANE rather than change lanes, as is the legal standard.

Of course, most motorists that fuss at me are not interested in dialog. They want to get past me because they are late for that cup of caffe latte mochachino or something, and just want to vent their frustration over their own tardiness and lack of time-management skills at me as they rush past.