Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
I don't assume that just because I am riding as conspicuously and as safely as possible and am as well lit as anyone that people in cars will see me... because quite often they still don't. This is not limited to motorists as there are some bad cyclists out there and they actually account for more accidents than do the cagers. I have come close to hitting quite a few other cyclists who were not following the rules of the road or making like ninjas.
Is that clear enough ?
Yes, but that's quite different from assuming you are invisible. It's much closer to what Allister wrote:
Be visible, but don't rely on always being seen.
I would like to suggest that a motorist or cyclist who looks right at you and doesn't "see" you is not necessarily a bad driver or cyclist, as your words seem to imply. Many if not most or even all humans are prone to inattentional blindness at least once in a while.
Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
I have no dangerous delusions... bike lanes run parallel to traffic where I live and I ride with my radar on high and with my head on a swivel but the bicycle paths and what we affectionately call bike highways (because that is what they were designed for) provide for long stretches of riding with very little interaction with cars. These routes are very popular and effective for many types of non vehicular traffic to get around safely and quickly. 50 - 60% of my daily commute can be done on routes that I don't share with cars and I have to applaud our city for taking cyclist's needs into consideration.
Yes, truly segregated paths and "bike highways" can be a good thing. But the fact is that we're limited on where they can be built in developed urban and suburban areas. We have a pretty cool bike highway in San Diego that Gene likes to write about as if it should and could be clone in other areas, but what he neglects to mention is that 10 years ago the location of that bike highway (and adjacent freeway) was rolling rural hills. So yeah, in a situation like that there was room to build a bike highway (not to mention a 6 lane freeway with a broad median), but in most existing urban/suburban areas paths and bike highways are not a practical option.
Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
Well designed bike lanes are also a good thing and I use them when they are effective but do not feel bound to use them if they put me in a compromised situation.
What is good about a "well designed" bike lane that would not be true on that same road if everything stayed the same except the bike lane stripe were removed?
Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
I equate vehicular as riding with and in traffic... taking the lane is often really effective while at other times one can safely take up a position where you are 3 feet from the curb or 3 feet from parked cars which allows faster moving vehicles to pass.
When I approach intersections I take a position in the through lane if I am going through (if I am not already there) so that I am more visible to oncoming cars and will move into the turning lanes if I am turning.
Okay, but that's just one aspect of vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling includes riding integrated with other traffic, but is not limited to that.
Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
I rode 16,000 mostly urban kilometres last year and managed to get though all that with one incident of being clipped by a passing truck while I was in the lane and matching the speed of the traffic and hit a car when it shot out of an alley and cut me off.
It's revealing that you write about a clipping incident without mentioning whether the lane was wide enough to be safely shared side by side by bike and vehicle, both fully within the lane, nor where in the lane you were positioned laterally. I mean, merely not providing these particular very relevant details indicates a probable lack of appreciation for the role these particular factors play in reducing the likelihood of being clipped like this.
As far as the car that shot out of the alley and cut you off, which you hit, was it a Mercedes being backed out of a Denver alley by a woman by any chance (that's an inside joke for anyone who has read Robert Hurst's book)? But seriously, Hurst describes essentially the same thing, but accepts some responsibility for it. Again, it's revealing that you don't talk about where you were positioned laterally. I assume there was no other same direction traffic at the time (or they would have presumably crashed into the same car).
Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
In both cases the drivers of these vehicles should have been able to see me since I was positioned correctly and there was nothing to obstruct their view.
Again, being totally and completely overlooked from time to time should not be surprising, including by overtaking same-direction traffic if you are riding in a bike lane or even in a lane sharing position near the outside edge of the lane.
Also, note that being visible in terms of sight lines is not the same as being conspicuous in terms of being in space where drivers pay most of their attention.
Not to gloat, but I have not had a crash in over 30 years, and I would be looking at a serious revamp of my behavior if I had two close calls in one year, much less two actual crashes. Perhaps that's why you've been subconsciously motivated to come to A&S?
Originally Posted by
Sixty Fiver
If there had been a bike lane where I got clipped it is very unlikely I would have been hit... the second incident was unavoidable as even if there was a bike lane, the car would have still been moving to cross it and my path.
I wasn't there, but I would suggest that there are probably much more significant factors than the presence or absence of a bike lane stripe that determines whether you are clipped.