Originally Posted by
joejack951
And you are right, in general cyclists can right to the ride in between intersections without having much to worry about. Just like you tout staying on the shoulder on rural highways. However, I don't believe I've ever posted that staying to the far right in a WOL is something I recommend. The problem is with inattentive motorists and their tendency to drift coupled with their tendency to not be paying attention to what's not directly in front of them. However, in this forum, making suggestions for how cyclists might avoid this fate will get you mocked endlessly by members such as yourself.
The guy who hit these cyclists had no malicious intent, just like other motorists who have done the same thing have had no ill will towards cyclists. That's why all the legislation in the world won't prevent this from happening again. That's why advocating ways of avoiding this fate is important in some small respect (given it's rarity).
Part of the problem is not getting the whole picture because of driving too fast for the conditions. As motorists drive faster, a "tunnel vision" effect takes place, which requires scanning the roadway from side to side. Race car drivers do this and so do more experienced (rare) motorists, but the average joe tends to focus on the dashed line or the vehicle in front... or even the line on the side, which is one reason why that inattention blindness occurs. The drifting occurs due to focusing on something like the markers or side of the road. The sad fact is that many motorists drive only just barely well enough to avoid daily near misses... and as far as the general public is concerned, that is good enough.
However good enough may not really be good enough, as illustrated by the number of motorist deaths that occur each year. But somehow those deaths are considered "acceptable" by the general public.
Better driver education could help... but it is not considered politically acceptable. Better roads could help, but there is not enough funding for infrastructure (as evidenced by bridge failures). The alternative at this point seems to be passive restraint systems for drivers and passengers... and these do save lives... provided one is inside the car. And since the cost is picked up directly by the vehicle user... this absolves the government from providing better general solutions, just mandates and guidlines.
Eventually this "passive restraint approach" will lead to autonomous drive vehicles... maybe not in my lifetime, but the studies are going on now, and some time in the not too distant future the "self parking" technology we see today will lead to the self driving cars of the future.
Cars will not go away... some technology will be harnessed to allow vehicles of some sort to be used in spite of the decline of availablity of fossil fuel. Cars will become "smarter." That trend is well on the way.