Bikepacker67

I didn't stop, but I chuckled.
Isn't Rural ALREADY an adjective?

But when all is said and done, I agree with HH's arguments, even though I think his reputation shoots his credibility in the foot.

For instance:
Anyone who's racked up road miles can't argue with that. Left hooks, and T-bones are lessened by being where opposing cagers have their eyeballs.

AlmostTrick

Good job on the opening post explaining the DLLP technique and including answers to the frequently asked questions. Hopefully, this means we won't have to read about it in almost every other thread now, as promised here:

I have read practically all of the posts in every thread regarding this controversial technique. I fail to understand how anyone can argue that a cyclist on the shoulder is going to be just as relevant to a motorist as one who is directly in their path. When a motor vehicle driver sees anything directly in their path, bells and whistles go off in their head, because they KNOW that if they proceed, there will be a collision. As long as the cyclist moves right (onto the wide shoulder) well in advance, I don't see how it could be considered unsafe or discourteous.

The fear that this may set up motorist expectation that a cyclist will always move over for motor traffic is a valid point. In areas with heavy bicycle use I would recommend against it for this reason. However in other area's like mine, where I almost never see a cyclist on my rural roads, it forces drivers to pay attention. Then when they see the cyclist move over, they see that as being courteous. Win, win.

I really don't see what the big fuss is about on this issue, other than it's been presented relentlessly on too many threads by one member. If you like the technique, use it. If not, don't.

SSP

That's a different issue...

HH's theory is not about how to handle intersections (the source of most car-bike collisions). It is specifically limited to straight rural roadways with wide outer lanes and no driveways.

Bekologist

HH's conjectured theory is based on half baked conscepts and a phrase he pulls out of context from an article written to minimize lialibility in the legal arena. his patented "PEEK-A-BOO" technique is patently unsafe because it places a bicyclist swerving in front of every vehicle only to swerve out of the way in the last seconds before impact.


do not let a moment of YOUR innatention contribute to an accident, near miss, or angry drivers.

riding "PEEK-A-BOO" is unsafe, unwise, much more ambigious and exponentially more dangerous by placing a bicyclist in the path of EVERY car on the road unececessarily.

Ridning "PEEK-A-BOO" is exponentially more dangerous than keeping as far right as practable- the widely, almost universally accepted standard of bicycle piloting on roadways - and contribues to greater hazards to both bicyclist AND car traffic.

this does NOT mean a bicyclist shouldn't take the lane whenever necessary to avoid upcoming hazards. Howeve, riding "PEEK-A-BOO" (tm) lane default and swerving out of every upcoming or overtaking vehicle to then ride safely in a more appropriate position IS unsafe.

like head says, he rides safely in shoulders and bike lanes all the time.

what HH fails to follow through with his logic, that if a shoulder or bike lane is considered by a bicyclist SAFE in the PRESENCE of traffic, does NOT become UNSAFE in the ABSENCE of traffic.

So, Bikepacker, you weave unecessarily in and out of twelve foot shoulders on curvy, hilly, highway speed roads too, just like helmet head, in paranoid fears of 'cognitive inconspicuity?'

you, bikepacker, one of many high mileage types, would seem to be more aware of consistent lines versus swerving, the absolute visibility of high vis safety item trumping cognitive inconspicuity, and also understand safe roadway positioning.

or do you do the "PEEK-A-BOO" 2?

Bekologist

why does all of this sound suspicously like a bad case of TUNNEL VISION......drivers only notice things right in front of them? what a crock! oh, that's right, head thinks drivers only are responsible for noticing things directly in their path......

"I got.....tunnel vision".......PEEK-A-BOO...... sike!

joejack951

This specific part of the theory is not about handling intersections. But if you've paid any attention, you'd know that avoiding inadvertent drifts is just a small part of why a cyclist would choose to ride this way. The rest of the reasons are for becoming more conspicuous to oncoming and cross traffic.

joejack951

Not trying to sound like HH, but have you read the "Bike Lane Deaths" thread? I think that's plenty of proof that inadvertent drift does happen. And if you ride on narrow roadways where motorists can't do anything but notice you or hit you, you'll see that motorists do take plenty of notice of what's up ahead of them in their lane. Is it a perfect conclusion? Maybe not but neither is any conclusion from a scientific test. And, if you needed any more reason to try DLLP than avoiding inadvertent drift, just take a look at the vast majority of cyclist/motorist collisions and see how easily that could have been avoid if the cyclist had been centered in the traffic lane.

HWS

Who ever knew riding a bike could be so complicated?

Brian Sorrell

Take a few logic and reasoning classes and edit the OP.

Yikes. 9 assumptions? In terms of necessity and sufficiency, you assert that the NINE assumptions must be taken on faith for the argument to be persuasive. If you take them to be necessary, which is what you've implied, and I reject what you label A, then your argument loses its so-called force. (In fact I do reject A).

If you want to formalize an argument, which you appear to want to do, at least use accepted terminology. You have premises and conclusions -- the section that you call "reasoning" appears to be what should be "conclusions". Arguments are described as valid and as sound -- validity is an assessment of the structure of an argument, soundness is an assessment of the truth of its premises. Show us the logical structure of your argument and demonstrate that the structure is valid. Then show us that your premises are true. Notice that if your premises are as complicated as those that you present, it will take further arguments to show this.

That said, I would advise against trying to come up with a deductive argument in favor of whatever you call your riding style.

It's not a theory.

It's not a hypothesis.

It's a technique.

Safe riding comes from developing a competency at using a wide variety of techniques, including but not limited to this one.

Brian Ratliff

Can you say... cherry picking? That's all I have to say about that. It shows nothing more than that bicycle accidents do happen in bike lanes - nobody disputes that. It does not address the implied corollary that less accidents happen in the traffic lanes. It's the rule of large numbers. Even if you have a 1 in a million chance of something happening, if there are million cyclists riding in the US every day, then the "1 in a million" chance means it happens once a day. Sounds like a lot, but the odds are still 1 in a million. That it is being reported more often simply means that newspapers are starting to take note of cyclists, and instead of getting the two paragraph on page 12 treatment, it gets the full column on page 1 treatment - especially in the Pacific NW where cycling is gaining in popularity faster than in other places. Also, more and more newspapers are on the internet, where the articles can be found easily and posted to websites like this.

In fact, the TexDOT bike lane/WOL study has a literature review showing that there is at least one survey of traffic accidents which finds that accidents in bike lanes account for a very small percentage of accidents (~2%) with most other accidents happening in traffic lanes.

Got a source for this tidbit of information? I strongly suspect that this is just pulled out of your arse.

Your foundation is extremely weak, so I choose to go with my own experience, which happens to reject most of what you suggest. Not all of it is wrong. But my experience suggests that centering yourself in the standard width lane as a "default position" is almost never necessary. A "taking the lane" maneuver is done when there is a reason; i.e. destination positioning at intersections, or taking a lane when road conditions prohibit lane sharing. On a road with a shoulder or bike lane, just being near the white line works fine. On rural roads with no shoulder, a position a foot or so to the left of the white line is plenty unless there is a blind corner ahead. "Taking the lane" is a transient condition dictated by local traffic and road conditions. There are guidelines for when to "take the lane," but there are no hard and fast rules I have found from my riding experience.

"DLLP" also has nothing to do with the traditional "taking the lane" maneuver (since you end up letting the car pass immediately, "taking the lane" is a way of getting traffic behind you to not pass you immediately). Rather, it is a technique to solve a very small problem while creating a host of others. My alternative, to simply stay close to the line denoting the bike lane or shoulder, solves this problem as well, but without the need to scan a mirror every 5 seconds and without causing a "panic reaction" in motorists coming from behind. I am still convinced that the safest motorist is the one who has the most information about the intent of the cyclist he is passing. Anything to make the actions of the cyclist less predictable is a safety hazard. This is what my experience has taught me.

This is my experience. Your weakly founded theories are not enough to change my mind on the matter. Now, experiences differ across different regions of the world. If I were to move away from my present home and into a different city which requires a somewhat different riding style, I will adapt. But it remains that there is no unified theory of lane positioning - only guidelines and advice on what to look out for. And I maintain that the extreme maneuvers dictated by "DLLP" are unnecessary and potentially hazardous.

Brian Ratliff

+1

Well said. Brian, you should reveal your background on the matter of logical argument. Helmet Head is an amateur philosopher. Brian, I believe you are not quite, yes?

All I am saying is that HH's technique is something that works for him in certain situations he comes across. It is not a unified theory by any means. I have heard enough replies from other, experienced, cyclists, as well as my own experience, to know that this is not a technique to use everywhere. Sometimes "inadvertent drift" is not the main concern. Moreover, there are other techniques which solve the "inadvertent drift" problem without causing so many others.

vrkelley

Thanks JoeJack. I found it. https://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/143989-bike-lane-deaths.html. It lists drift incidents over the period of 1 year:

Post 1 Fatality
Post 59 Wound
Post 63 Fatality
Post 128 Fatality
Post 167 Fatalities (2) ---->ADDED

EDITED: to 5 fatalities
We have 5 known fatalities due to lane drift. Anyone got comparisions between the lane fatalities and street riding fatalities? I'll look also.

Brian Ratliff

Again, the insults. You are just rude. And did you act any better? All you did was whine and "demand" the answer to two, irrelevent, yes or no questions. Everyone was arguing about why your two yes or no questions, which you meant as a retorical trap, were irrelevent. Instead of responding, all you did was whine. So you started a new thread... Typical.

You have no credentials, beyond that you ride a bike, which everyone here does. John, perhaps, was arguing above your level. He has experience in this type of thing as a professional that you lack. No wonder you did not understand his arguments to the subject. I understood, and others understood. You alone here didn't understand and simply whined that he was beating you; that he wasn't falling for your amateurish retorical traps. No wonder you started a new thread. Just like a spoiled kid losing a checkers game, you simply threw a fit, upset the board, and started over.

Brian Ratliff

Search down for the TexDOT study (I believe the title was something like "UT study on bike lanes" or something to that effect). It contains a literature review which discusses a study which compares bike lane fatalities to street riding fatalities. Dispite what some people want you to believe, there are surveys on this subject, and it tends to confirm the logic that bike laned roads are safer than roads with no bike lanes. All the studies which Forester, himself, surveys come to the conclusion that "inadvertent drift," which is classified as a "hit from behind" accident, are extremely rare, which forms the basis for the vehicular cycling technique in the first place. These being rare means that there is a basis for riding closer to the traffic stream and the basis for "taking the lane" maneuvers which are widely accepted by experienced cyclists. But this "DLLP" technique is Helmet Head's alone; very few, even in the "VC community" (by which I mean VC message boards and such) agree with his assessment and riding technique.

tomcryar

Very well stated. Thank you.

vrkelley

...Brian, would you post the link if you find it?

vrkelley

That all may be true. But HH identified a point that people are dying due to drift. I don't agree with his theory but perhaps someone else will cook up a better technique that will prevent deaths.

That's my hope anyway...otherwise, I would have already bailed on this whole forum.

joejack951

Brian, if you are confusing inadvertent drift with a hit from behind accident, then you are completely missing the point.

THE main argument given by people on this board in opposition to HH's advice is that a cyclist "taking the lane for no reason" WILL get hit from behind by faster moving traffic. If you accept that, then you cannot accept vehicular cycling at all.

joejack951

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/229672-ut-study-bike-lanes.html

In the article is a link to the pdf of the study.

SSP

That's not true at all...most of us are not saying that. We're saying there's no evidence that DLLP increases conspicuity or decreases the risk of accident. Most of us are assertive VC-style riders who take the lane whenever necessary. But, DLLP is simply not necessary.

SSP

Brian - thanks for post #35. Very well stated.

Geraldo

You do know that this site is advertising, right? Thousands of satisfied customers...I mean studies...

SingingSabre 

I'm on page 1 and don't really care to read page 2 (or page 3 if that was created while I was reading). I just wanted to post more lyrics from my song currently being polished and recorded (albeit amateurly), "The DLLP Rag."

RobertHurst

When people say that they adjust position for the primary reason of increasing conspicuity to motorists, it is a red flag to me. Although that is one of the prime messages of LAB/EC/VC whatever, the mantra of stay 'visible and predictable' to motorists, in my opinion it is a miserable philosophy, a grave disservice to cyclists, and an ugly example of putting the cart before the horse. Let me explain...

Increasing conspicuity is a helpful BONUS of leftward positioning, it's a wonderful fantastic thing, but not the reason for doing it. Why move left then? Move left to improve your own personal sight lines, and to create a buffer of space and time between yourself and inevitable intrusions from the right. When folks put 'increase visibility and predictability to motorists' above these reasons, at the top of their lists of reasons for 'DLLP' in urban areas, it tells me that they are still in the wrong frame of mind for dealing with traffic. They still put too much faith in drivers, they still offer them bits of the responsibility for their own safety that are better held by the cyclist. It is responsibility better held by the cyclist because, no matter if you have maximized conspicuity to motorists in every sense, there will still be those who fail to notice your presence. That's a fact. That's inevitable.

The concept of lateral lane positioning is a strategy for mitigating danger from CROSS-TRAFFIC and is closely linked with cycling speed. "At moderate, ho-hum urban-cycling speeds, the rider will not have to be too concerned about maintaining a buffer zone unless the street is lined with parked cars. Streets with clear edges, few pedestrians, a view all the way to the curb, and good lines of sight to any driveways, alleys, or intersections can be ridden safely all the way to the right if one wishes." (p. 76. A of UC)

All these discussions of increasing conspicuity on rural roads reveal (1) the same bizarre over-obsession with same-direction traffic that has infected cycling safety discussions since the 70's and which I believe created the Vehicular Cycling movement in a lightning flash of irony that was too bright to look at directly, and (2) a misplaced faith in lane position as an effective means of ensuring conspicuity.

Robert

Wogster

In 1999 the City of Toronto in Ontario, Canada did a detailed analysis of all bicycle-motor vehicle collisions over the previous 2 years; this was at the behest of the coroners office and was undertaken by the city traffic services department, this report is available online.

Out of 2572 collisions, 629 involved sidewalk or crosswalk riding, darkness or poor visibility 355, improper or unsafe lane change (motorist) 68, cyclist impaired 9, motorist failed to detect cyclist 5, motorist impaired 3. I have not listed all the instances, if you want to know the rest, read the report. For all of HHs rantings, the important thing here only .19% of all instances involved a failure to detect. Drifting into the bike lane, would be a subset of failure to detect.

More important issues, 25% involved sidewalk/crosswalk instances, and 14% involved a lack of lights, in other words if we spend $5,000,000 on bicycle safety, where do we get the most benefit, adding rumble strips to roads to prevent drift, or by increasing enforcement of laws that prohibit sidewalk riding, and making lights mandatory for street bicycles. In fact I would like to see minimum standards for bicycle lighting, similar to the standards for automobile lighting.