Some Saturday afternoon when lots of folks are out and about, strap on a helmet, hop on a bike, and ride from up around Shattuck and Rose to, say, Shattuck and Berkeley Way. In my experience, if you stay towards the side (leaving the right lane open to cautious car traffic) you’ll encounter a fair amount of incautious car traffic and have some close calls. These are not in and of themselves obviously “road rage” so much as thoughtless and dangerous driving. However:

In such a circumstance, it’s proper and prudent for cyclists to “take the lane” assuming they can move at a reasonable rate of speed relative to the speed limit. This forces most cars to pass with greater care. Do this a few times, though, and you are likely (in my experience) to find your road rage in such forms as menacing from behind, inappropriate honking, pulling alongside and yelling, and cutting off after passing. (Of course, the rate of traffic flow in Berkeley at times like this is such that you’re likely to then encounter these drivers who are in such a hurry at the next several red lights: they have shaved 0 seconds off of their trip by gunning ahead of you and driving vindictively.)

In that area, if I’ve noticed any trend, it isn’t the stereotype “plastered with bumper sticker” cars likely to be doing this. If there’s a pattern, its more commonly some of the more expensive cars on the road (which may or may not have a tasteful bumper sticker or two).

The problem isn’t unique to that area. My point is that you can pretty reliably observe road rage with the experiment I suggested (for safety reasons, think thrice before trying it: it’s a dangerous road for cyclists!). Over the years, that is an area where I have seen probably the largest number of car vs. pedestrian and car vs. bicycle “accidents” among the places I commonly go in Berkeley.

All of that said: far more common (in my experience) is to encounter drivers in Berkeley who both are almost obsequiously polite and generous in their driving, and who seem to appreciate considerate bicycling (of which Berkeley has, I think, a bit of a deficit). Countless times, after fully stopping at an intersection and not having the right of way drivers with the right of way have waved me through. Fairly often, waiting to cross a busy street, cars in both directions have spontaneously brought traffic to a safe stop to to let the cyclists through. These kind gestures aren’t always “rational” for perfect traffic flow: sometimes it would have been faster if that driver with right away would have gone ahead. Nevertheless, they are always day brightening events and (for me at least) an inspiration to be, in turn, a considerate cyclist. My impression is that Berkeley is, indeed an outlier in having so many drivers who are so considerate in those ways.

The bicycling population of Berkeley tends to disobey traffic laws. The few bicyclists I know are sanctimonious. They think themselves better than us Earth-killers who use automobiles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal

I’d contend that environmentalism, in its popular form is scant more than bad religion.

Environmentalists are judgmental: unless I do exactly as they say they are convinced that plague will befall the land. Therefore they attempt to impose their morality on me. Basically, they’re a bunch of petty Fallwells.

The moral acts that distinguish them from heathens are superficial. They drive slightly more expensive cars. They buy slightly more expensive food. They use slightly more expensive shoppings bags. They can even buy indulgences–carbon offsets. The really pious ones live monastic lives of privation, but they are few and far between.

Their leaders are not subjects to the same constraints that they are–Al Gore has giant mansions and flies around without compunction. Even the most scurrilous of politicians who talk the language of environmentalism get their votes–all they care about is electing a fellow believer. They’ve even got a promised land–the green economy.

What is laughable is that, mostly, its largely science. Go listen to Prof. Muller’s lectures on the subject:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-D-51950|2009-D-69330&semesterid=2009-D

See lecture 20. My own views are even more skeptical then his. (Since when has skepticism become contrary to Berkeley’s values? For that matter how did evangelism become a value of Berkeley? I just want to be left alone.)

The IPCC report, which is not hostile to global warming theory, severely contradicts Al Gore’s movie. The Sea levels are not going to rise by 40 feet. The hockey stick plot is made up. Temperatures today are not yet higher than during the medieval warm period. The glacier on Kilimanjaro was disappearing long before men burned oil. Like chad was drained by irrigation. Polar bears and penguins have known how to swim for a very long time.

The aforementioned acts of environmental piety will make no difference, if even if you posit truth in anthropogentic global warming. Whether or not atmospheric CO2 increases is largely in the hands of the Indians and Chinese. Which brings me to a serious fear: A holy war on the CO2 infidels? The political leaders would love this–it would provide a means to default on our debt. Then again, liberals don’t mind using my children as collateral, so maybe they don’t mind debt.

Berkeley has rediscovered the ugliness of religion without any of its warmth or stability.