Cyclist0108

Can anyone recommend a mirror that I can attach to this (and preferably one that won't snap off in a week)?

JoeyBike

I forgot about the horn blowing. Volume is off my work computer by default. I saw the incident on TV last night - with sound - and heard the horn, thought same as you, then promptly forgot about it. Good call.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are the one who seems to be under the influence of a magical spell.

Are you claiming that bicyclists who "control the lane by default" are protected from death or injury while riding a bicycle?

So few bicyclists ride anywhere else but along the edge, in the gutter, on shoulders, and in bike lanes in the presence of moving traffic on busy streets and/or high speed roads that it is improbable that any credible statistical evidence exists to support your belief in the magical powers of "controlling the lane by default" to reduce bicyclists' risk of death or injury while riding a bicycle.

Ninety5rpm

You're misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with the difference in the sight lines for the edge vs lane cyclists; it has everything to do with the motorist's behavior in reaction to the two positions.

A motorist who is approaching an edge cyclist typically does not alter speed or position regardless of whether the edge cyclist is seen. So an edge cyclist with a mirror can't discern between the two motorists - both are behaving the same in terms of speed and trajectory even though one is alert and the other is inattentive and about to drift into the cyclist.

A motorist who is approaching a cyclist in the lane most does alter speed or position (if not both) in reaction to the presence of the cyclist up ahead in his path. So this cyclist with a mirror CAN discern between the two motorists - should one be so inattentive as to not notice a cyclist directly in his path he will be be blatantly obvious (neither slowing nor changing his trajectory). Or, in this case, where the motorist want's to teach the cyclist a lesson, his trajectory will be towards a buzz pass or actual contact rather than one headed for safe pass.

Spend some time with a mirror and experimenting with lane positioning and you'll see what I mean.

This was an extremely rare case of a sociopath intent on hitting the cyclist, and this cyclist did not have a mirror a feature of which is protection against sociopaths like this.

Thanks for paying attention. But you're still missing two three key points. If you're preemptively FRAP than you're:

1. Giving motorists little if any reason to slow down or change trajectory before passing you.
2. Not giving yourself with a mirror the ability to identify those who don't notice you (and potentially about to drift into you at the last moment) as discussed above.
3. Leaving yourself little or no buffer to move to if/when you do notice a motorist about to buzz/hit you. [EDIT: added; thanks to AlmostTrick]

AlmostTrick

Yay! A feisty lane position thread in A&S just like the good old days!



3. Leaving yourself little or no buffer to move to if/when you do notice a motorist about to buzz/hit you.

AlmostTrick

I've had good results (for years) with "Third Eye". I've not tried them but others really like "Take a Look". Check 'em out.

Ninety5rpm

It's obvious to me from my personal experience that the odds are much better for those who control the lane by default, but of course there is no panacea. Reducing risk is the best we can do.

Indeed. But again, if you seriously experiment with lane positioning while using a mirror the difference in motorist behavior in reacting to your presence is enormous. No comparison. Night and day. It's like asking a study to prove that a sponge retains more water than a rock when placed in a bucket. I, for one, don't need to a study to know that outcome either. It's that obvious. But don't believe me (or anyone else). Luckily it's not necessary It's easy to try the experiment for yourself. Once I got comfortable with the mirror after a week or two I started experimenting with different positions. Immediately obvious. Surprising, really. And of course all we're talking about here is advantages with interactions with overtaking traffic. The real benefit to using the full lane by default is with respect to reduction in risk with crossing conflicts - right hooks, left crosses and anyone pulling out in front of you from the right.

The whole thing is counter intuitive, of course. I mean, riding in the path of 2 ton motor vehicles seems insane. But that's where the mirror really helps, to see how well you are seen and treated when you are riding where they are looking, which is how I prefer to think of it. Riding where they are looking. That's what it is all about.

Ninety5rpm

YES! I edited my post accordingly. Thanks!

vol

Side observation: the lime green/yellow shirt does not have high visibility in that background. Orange/pink would be better.

JoeyBike

Please stay away from motorcycles!

PatrickGSR94

No one is protected from death or injury while riding a bicycle, just by riding a bicycle. No one ever made such a claim. No one is protected against death or injury doing much of anything, really, unless you're actively taking measures to avoid death and injury. When you drive you try to follow traffic laws, wear seat belt, etc. to avoid crashing or prevent injury if someone crashes into you. When you chop food you keep your fingers out of the path of the blade to avoid injury. When you weld or work with machinery you wear any number of PPE items to avoid injury or worse. When you control the lane by default you stay visible, predictable, relevant. My assertion is that controlling the lane helps AVOID many of the issues faced by edge-riding cyclists, before they become issues. One nice side effect of controlling the lane by default is that flats are an extremely rare occurrence.

This one incident of a motorist (perhaps intentionally) hitting a cyclist squarely in front of them, in the travel lane, is exceedingly rare.

genec

Exceeding rare? Or just rarely caught on tape/film/documented in some way? There have even been cases where cyclists were hit and the event was recorded and police departments denied that it happened. (the "intentional aspect" is indeed debatable... )

(I will admit that cyclists being hit is somewhat rare, or we'd all be on a rampage... but the "exceedingly" aspect I question... it really happens too often, if drivers are actually paying attention)

I-Like-To-Bike

Your anecdotes may be comforting to you, as they are for Patrick and others. The changes in motorist behavior you witness provides no evidence that you and others who share your lane positioning technique are at any less risk of getting injured or killed than the great majority of cyclists just because you believe motorists "react" differently to your presence in the road.

Ninety5rpm

Fair enough. But there is no evidence that the opposite is true either, right? In the end, for a variety of reasons, the data is so sparse that we all must rely on what we experience. And it's only natural to try to avoid close calls, figure out what leads to them, and avoid doing that, doesn't it? I mean, if a car driver tends to tailgate and is slamming on his brakes frequently to avoid crashing, sooner or later he won't make it in time, right? Isn't it only logical that there is a high positive correlation between close call frequency and likelihood of collision? If he learns to follow the 2-second rule and experiences far less need if any to slam brakes to avoid crashing, that makes him less likely to crash, right? I really don't think assuming there is a high positive correlation between close call frequency and likelihood of crashing is some kind of crazy hypothesis. Does it seem unreasonable to you?

In short, we don't have much real science to go on either way. But everything we do have to go on, as far as I can tell, consistently indicates full lane use by default is the best strategy for reducing car-bike crash risk.

I mean, what's your basis for believing that edge riding by default is safer than full lane use by default, if that's what you believe?

I-Like-To-Bike

I made no claim about any specific lane positioning technique reducing cycling risk in the absence of any credible data, that has been the conceit of the vehicular cyclists dogmatists for 40 years.

Ninety5rpm

Very good. Well, then, what is the basis you use to decide how and where you position yourself on the roadway when you ride?

I-Like-To-Bike

I decide on positioning by what seems best for me considering the specific traffic and road environment at that specific moment and don't have any personal set in stone positioning policy, nor do I make any claim that works best for me is evidence of guidance that can be relied on to reduce bicycling risk for everybody/anybody else.

AlmostTrick

Full lane use does offer the cyclist the most space to maneuver, the greatest buffer, the most favorable sight lines, and usually the cleanest pavement. It seems to me it would be difficult to dispute these points. The risks most often pointed to when riding in the lane is being hit from behind, or enraging motorists. But in my experience both of these risks are easily mitigated with a mirror, and full cyclist attention... And moving right to facilitate overtaking when it's safe and reasonable to do so. So why wouldn't I use the travel lanes as often as possible?

Maybe I need to wait for a BF approved study? Naw, I'll just do what works best for me... just like ILTB!

f4rrest

It's such an obvious difference, once you've gained a bit if experience with a mirror.

I use this technique on fast, narrow climbs with sparse traffic when the sightlines are good.

In heavier traffic or around blind corners or hill crests, it can't be relied on.

PatrickGSR94

You imply that edge riding is the safer option by denying that full lane use is the safer option. I haven't seen anything to support that view, and it's certainly completely opposite of my experiences on various type of roads. The only situation I know of where riding more to the edge might be the safer option is on a higher speed road, with a wide, clean shoulder or bike lane, with VERY FEW, if any, turning opportunities.

I-Like-To-Bike

My statement "implies" nothing of the sort; must be the influence of that magic spell you seem to be under.
Suggest you take a class on logical argument.

Leisesturm

I use this mirror: https://www.efficientvelo.com/home/safezone/ but I do not use the supplied zip ties to mount it. I attach it as shown in the photo. Double sided tape could work, but I use hook and loop (Velcro) tape with the hook side (or is it the loop?) fixed to the helmet and the other side to the mount. Mirror and mount have been working fine for many years of near daily use.

Ninety5rpm

Well, that's pretty vague. "What seems best for me considering the specific traffic and road environment".

What seems best based on what?

Either you base your positioning decisions on a set of basic principles formed by a rational, disciplined process of thought and logical deliberation (and thus you can identify them) — or you let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, vague generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans ("act like you're invisible!"), doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel that suggests what seems best in a given situation for reasons you can't identify. I suppose you're talking about the latter?

I-Like-To-Bike

You can suppose anything you like, just as you and others of the Vehicular Cycling persuasion do for the risk reduction powers of lane positioning dogma.

Chris0516

It is sort of a 50/50:

Orange in daylight, lime green at night.