Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Cyclist killed by PU driver leaving parking lot - discussion

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Cyclist killed by PU driver leaving parking lot - discussion

Old 03-01-07, 11:00 AM
  #51  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
yep, look at the the wheels. look at everything a car is doing, but 'verify?' plueaze...

I like "look and read" and "Assume the worst" as a lot more realistic than a pithy cold war slogan about not following disarmament treaties as traffic cycling advice.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:10 AM
  #52  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
agree with that.

I find 'trust, but verify' a meaningless, vacous, cold war slogan being used as some type of traffic advice when its really nonsense. Verify a car has seen you? please. as a cyclist, you verify nothing. even a car stopped with a driver looking straight at you may pull out, even after you've supossedly 'verified' the driver has stopped for you. as in Gene's examples.

I find 'trust, but verify' a misappropriation of a cold war slogan that actually DOESN'T carry over to riding technique. you as a rider get to verify nothing about the automobiles. until they've ceased to be a concern, at which time you could verify you've passed them safely, i guess.

worthless musings of an armchair cyclist (not YOU, slow and steady) do you actually say to yourself "trust, but verify" when you pass other traffic? that's ridiculous in my personal, high mileage opinion. you're free to do what you want, but the advice to

"verify" a driver sees you, using some visual cue, before you put yourself in potential conflict zone is HIGHLY UNREALISTIC for on road riding.
Bek, have you made a genuine attempt to understand what I mean by "trust but verify" in the context of cycling in traffic?

Funny, I don't remember you asking any questions to clarify that.

But that hasn't stopped you from engaging in your usual mindless rants.

Slowandsteady seems to understand what I mean. Why can't you?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:15 AM
  #53  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
I like "look and read" ...
Why bother? After all, "even a car stopped with a driver looking straight at you may pull out, even after you've supossedly 'verified' the driver has stopped for you." and "as a rider get to verify nothing about the automobiles. until they've ceased to be a concern,"

So why bother to "read"?

Originally Posted by jhumason
On the "trust and verify" thing. I think a better way to put it is to "look and read" . Look at each driver who could put you in an unsafe situation, and try to read his/her intentions. Whether you get actual eye contact or not is not crucial, but it helps if you do.
First, it's "trust but verify". Also, if you can't verify, then don't trust... don't put yourself in a situation where your safety depends on someone's attention that you have not verified.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:24 AM
  #54  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by genec
Recently while both cycling and walking I have noticed a preponderance of motorists failing to even hesitate when entering from a side street, or a driveway... somewhere in their minds the idea of a quick glance seems quite sufficient and off they go.
Blow a whistle...no pun intended.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:25 AM
  #55  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jhumason
If someone is approaching the street from the side, I expect them not to stop...until they actually do. Before it comes to that decision point, I have already looked behind me and to my left for potential escape routes. And if they don't appear to be paying attention, I've already begun to avoid their ****-up before it happens.
Here's the difference for me:

If someone is approaching the street from the side, I trust them to stop..., but I don't put myself in a position where my safety depends on them to stop until I verified that they actually stopped. Before it comes to that decision point, I have already looked behind me and to my left for potential escape routes. And if they don't appear to be paying attention, I've already begun to avoid their ****-up before it happens.

Perhaps it amounts to the same thing, but what I'm trying to convey with trust but verify is the value in behaving as if they will stop (consistent with trusting that they will stop), as opposed to behaving consistent with an expectation that they won't stop. If you truly "expect them not to stop" (your words), then your behavior is likely to reflect that expectation, giving them less reason to stop. In other words, your expectation of driver behavior, regardless of what it is, tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in terms of how your expectation affects your behavior, and how your behavior affects their decision, and, thus, their behavior.

Another tip relevant to this topic is: Don't just look for the driver's eyes...always look at the front wheel(s) of the other car. Anything the vehicle is going to do (dynamically) will be visible first at the front wheel.
Yes, several of us have noted the futility in concluding anything from eye contact.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:54 AM
  #56  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 44

Bikes: Graco road bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...Perhaps it amounts to the same thing, but what I'm trying to convey with trust but verify is the value in behaving as if they will stop (consistent with trusting that they will stop), as opposed to behaving consistent with an expectation that they won't stop. If you truly "expect them not to stop" (your words), then your behavior is likely to reflect that expectation, giving them less reason to stop. In other words, your expectation of driver behavior, regardless of what it is, tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in terms of how your expectation affects your behavior, and how your behavior affects their decision, and, thus, their behavior...
I get what you are saying, but I don't agree about the response.

I consider myself an assertive driver...I drive in a manner where I try to assert my right to occupy the space my vehicle is occupying and my intention to go to the space I will soon be occupying. (Note that this is not the same as aggressive driving...I have a whole chapter on this subject that I won't bore you with. ) So I understand the value of not appearing to flinch.

But even if there is a chance that the other driver is going to respond the way that you fear, if you are going to err on the side of safety you must "not trust" and prepare to avoid impact. Particularly when the weight differential is so lopsided.
jhumason is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 12:20 PM
  #57  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jhumason
I get what you are saying, but I don't agree about the response.

I consider myself an assertive driver...I drive in a manner where I try to assert my right to occupy the space my vehicle is occupying and my intention to go to the space I will soon be occupying. (Note that this is not the same as aggressive driving...I have a whole chapter on this subject that I won't bore you with. ) So I understand the value of not appearing to flinch.

But even if there is a chance that the other driver is going to respond the way that you fear, if you are going to err on the side of safety you must "not trust" and prepare to avoid impact. Particularly when the weight differential is so lopsided.
Perhaps we're saying the same thing.

After all, the whole point of Reagan's original "trust, but verify" policy is you're really NOT trusting (otherwise you would have no need to verify), you're just acting like you are trusting (because acting like you don't trust can be problematic in and of itself).
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 12:35 PM
  #58  
Faster but still slow
 
slowandsteady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 5,978

Bikes: Trek 830 circa 1993 and a Fuji WSD Finest 1.0 2006

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
agree with that.

I find 'trust, but verify' a meaningless, vacous, cold war slogan being used as some type of traffic advice when its really nonsense. Verify a car has seen you? please. as a cyclist, you verify nothing. even a car stopped with a driver looking straight at you may pull out, even after you've supossedly 'verified' the driver has stopped for you. as in Gene's examples.

I find 'trust, but verify' a misappropriation of a cold war slogan that actually DOESN'T carry over to riding technique. you as a rider get to verify nothing about the automobiles. until they've ceased to be a concern, at which time you could verify you've passed them safely, i guess.

worthless musings of an armchair cyclist (not YOU, slow and steady) do you actually say to yourself "trust, but verify" when you pass other traffic? that's ridiculous in my personal, high mileage opinion. you're free to do what you want, but the advice to

"verify" a driver sees you, using some visual cue, before you put yourself in potential conflict zone is HIGHLY UNREALISTIC for on road riding.

Well I don't know about trust. How about just verify? I am not saying verify actions or intent, just verify where they are pointing their eyes. It isn't that hard to see if a person is not looking at you. These are the people that scare me most and I cycle accordingly. I also pay attention to their actions and am ready to slam on the brakes if need be.

It isn't about trust. How can you trust someone you don't know? You can't. The fact that I don't trust them is the reason that I bother to see if they are paying attention and looking where they should be looking. It also isn't the only thing that I do. I also have a blinky, and reflective tape, and headlights, and an orange vest and orange velcro around my ankles and on and on.

No one is so stupid to believe that making eye contact is a panacea. It is just one tool of many to keep me safe. And I fully acknowledge that it doesn't make sense to use it in a busy urban area. You are better off looking for other things like pedestrians, pot holes, and car doors.
slowandsteady is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 12:43 PM
  #59  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
This scenario often affects me as a pedestrian, except that I'm moving slowly enough to avoid problems, usually. A driver attempting to make a turn from a side street is looking for a gap in traffic, not me, the pedestrian. On one-way streets walking against traffic, all I see is the back of their heads. There is almost no remedy for this except to shout or clap my hands to get them to look at me before I trust them enough to walk in front of their vehicle (which is often blocking 90% of the crosswalk anyway.)

They miss their gap and have to start again, but at least I'm safe.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 02:26 PM
  #60  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by slowandsteady
Well I don't know about trust.
...
It isn't about trust. How can you trust someone you don't know? You can't. The fact that I don't trust them is the reason that I bother to see if they are paying attention and looking where they should be looking.
You are taking the word "trust" out of context.

In the context of "trust, but verify" (and in the spirit of Reagan's meaning, and why I use it describe the attitude I have in traffic), it actually means "act like you trust, but don't really trust, because you can't (therefore you must verify)".
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 02:48 PM
  #61  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Now HH is channeling Ronnie Reagan and interpeting the thoughts behind his words for us. Nice.
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 02:54 PM
  #62  
Faster but still slow
 
slowandsteady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 5,978

Bikes: Trek 830 circa 1993 and a Fuji WSD Finest 1.0 2006

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You are taking the word "trust" out of context.

In the context of "trust, but verify" (and in the spirit of Reagan's meaning, and why I use it describe the attitude I have in traffic), it actually means "act like you trust, but don't really trust, because you can't (therefore you must verify)".

Well don't we all "trust" the drivers at least a little bit, or else we would never leave our homes. And in terms of verify. All you can verify is where their eyes are pointing. God knows what these people are thinking or intending to do.
slowandsteady is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 02:59 PM
  #63  
Faster but still slow
 
slowandsteady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 5,978

Bikes: Trek 830 circa 1993 and a Fuji WSD Finest 1.0 2006

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Now HH is channeling Ronnie Reagan and interpeting the thoughts behind his words for us. Nice.

Maybe he just gave Nancy a ring or called Mr. T. I hear they are best buds.

slowandsteady is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 03:10 PM
  #64  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by slowandsteady
Well don't we all "trust" the drivers at least a little bit, or else we would never leave our homes. And in terms of verify. All you can verify is where their eyes are pointing. God knows what these people are thinking or intending to do.
You can also see what they're behavior is causing the vehicle to do (slowing down, speeding up, maintaining speed, turning wheels, not turning wheels, lane positioning, etc.), which I find to be much better verification of that they are doing than where their eyes are pointing, but, that too is often a useful clue.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 03:27 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
kf5nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX 77095
Posts: 1,470

Bikes: Specialized Sequoia Elite, Schwinn Frontier FS MTB, Centurion LeMans (1986)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Tap on their right passenger window with a 10' long stick? Throw a mung bean at their car?

At night I flash them with a bright flashlight.


Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
This scenario often affects me as a pedestrian, except that I'm moving slowly enough to avoid problems, usually. A driver attempting to make a turn from a side street is looking for a gap in traffic, not me, the pedestrian. On one-way streets walking against traffic, all I see is the back of their heads. There is almost no remedy for this except to shout or clap my hands to get them to look at me before I trust them enough to walk in front of their vehicle (which is often blocking 90% of the crosswalk anyway.)

They miss their gap and have to start again, but at least I'm safe.
kf5nd is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 04:13 PM
  #66  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You can also see what they're behavior is causing the vehicle to do (slowing down, speeding up, maintaining speed, turning wheels, not turning wheels, lane positioning, etc.), which I find to be much better verification of that they are doing than where their eyes are pointing, but, that too is often a useful clue.

What we trust, like all users of the road, is that everyone is playing from the same rulebook. Thus we trust that people will stop for stop signs and red lights, drive on the right, etc. One does not normally try to verify that every action of everything around is following those rules unless something they observe gives them reason to doubt that the rules will be followed. If the real world followed your advice, it would come to a standstill because nobody would do anything because they were too busy 'verifying'. This is pretty basic stuff to much more than cycling and for the life of me I don't know why you continue to treat everyone else who understands the concept as somehow stupid because they don't understand your advanced thinking.
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 04:36 PM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Blow a whistle...no pun intended.
I yelled at a guy in a minivan the other day. he was talking on his cell phone, looking the other way. I went "HEY!" just to let him know I was there. it worked. he saw me. probably thought I was deranged, but he didn't pull out in front of me.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 04:49 PM
  #68  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
What we trust, like all users of the road, is that everyone is playing from the same rulebook. Thus we trust that people will stop for stop signs and red lights, drive on the right, etc. One does not normally try to verify that every action of everything around is following those rules unless something they observe gives them reason to doubt that the rules will be followed. If the real world followed your advice, it would come to a standstill because nobody would do anything because they were too busy 'verifying'. This is pretty basic stuff to much more than cycling and for the life of me I don't know why you continue to treat everyone else who understands the concept as somehow stupid because they don't understand your advanced thinking.
Well, I don't think you're stupid, but you're definitely still not getting it if you think I'm suggesting that everyone or anyone "verify that every action of everything around is following those rules...".

The part you're missing is the filtering that reduces the every action of everything around, the verification of which is clearly unmanageable, to the fraction of those actions of the very small number of folks whose actions are relevant, or may soon be relevant, to one's safety.

At any given moment, a cyclist's safety is often not dependent on the actions of anyone but his own, nor is about to be, so that actions of others are irrelevant, and there is no need to trust or verify anything (at that moment).

At others moments, a cyclist can sometimes identify an individual whose actions in the coming moments may affect his safety. That's where "trust, but verify" applies - to that one individual's actions, not to every action of everything around.

I already covered this in #26,

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Second, it's not about verifying whether any and every driver has noticed you. Doing that would indeed lead to stimulus overload. Fortunately, for the most part, it doesn't matter whether they've noticed you or not. So the first trick is to identify those few drivers whose attention your safety is about to depend on, before you put yourself into a situation where your safety does depend on their noticing you. If you can't verify that, you just avoid putting yourself in the situation where your safety depends on their noticing you, and that rarely requires coming to a complete stop. It may involve slowing (and, yes, yielding), but usually can be done by increasing your safety buffer. But I agree with Chip that it's mostly a matter of being prepared mentally. This is really nothing more than a rewording of one of Robert Hurst's main themes in Urban Cycling.
Come to think of it, you even responded to it, in #27:

Originally Posted by chipcom
And I think Robert would agree that the concept isn't something he invented or made popular. These are basic self-defense techniques that apply to a wide range of activities. Kudos to Robert for applying it in his book.
I agree with that, but am confused why you continue to mischaracterize the concept with the extreme words every and everything around:

Originally Posted by chipcom
verify that every action of everything around is following those rules unless something they observe gives them reason to doubt that the rules will be followed.
(my bold emphasis)
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 06:46 PM
  #69  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
HH, as usual it's your attempt to use things stated by others, concerning different subjects and contexts, to try to explain your own theories that muddies the waters. Being aware of your surroundings and planning for Murphy is a proactive thing - very different from your 'act like you trust but verify' definition of Ronnie Reagan's sound bite. Acting doesn't keep you alive, being PROactive does. One cannot 'verify' the intentions of others, but we can 'assume' what they 'might' do based on their actions and our own experience and plan our actions accordingly. Robert did a good job explaining the concept...you...not so good.
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 07:33 PM
  #70  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Robert did a good job explaining the concept...you...not so good.
Perhaps not, given your take on it was "verify that every action of everything around is following those rules unless something they observe gives them reason to doubt that the rules will be followed" (which you have not yet retracted).

HH, as usual it's your attempt to use things stated by others, concerning different subjects and contexts, to try to explain your own theories that muddies the waters.
Excuse me? I made great efforts to explain the concept in my own words, as clearly as I could - saying specific things like "It's not about verifying whether any and every driver has noticed you". How much more clear and less muddy could I be? Never-the-less, you mischaracterize it as "verify that every action of everything around...". I honestly cannot fathom what I wrote that would make you think that's what I meant.


Being aware of your surroundings and planning for Murphy is a proactive thing - very different from your 'act like you trust but verify' definition of Ronnie Reagan's sound bite.
What part of "I agree with Chip that it's mostly a matter of being prepared mentally" did you miss? Do you really not see the connection between "prepared mentally" and "Being aware of your surroundings and planning for Murphy"?

Acting doesn't keep you alive, being PROactive does.
Do you think what I mean by "trust, but verify" means "acting keeps you alive", or is based on the premise that "acting keeps you alive"? Do you think that's what Reagan meant? Do you think "trust, but verify" means don't be PROactive? If so, what makes you think that? If not, why did you feel compelled to say this? I just don't get where you're getting this stuff.

One cannot 'verify' the intentions of others, but we can 'assume' what they 'might' do based on their actions and our own experience and plan our actions accordingly.
Who said anything about verifying the intentions of others? Where is this coming from?

You're providing very little evidence of your paying attention to what I'm writing, and really trying to understand what I mean. You seem to be very argumentative. I know that must be funny coming from me, but there it is.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 08:18 PM
  #71  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
P
Do you think what I mean by "trust, but verify" means "acting keeps you alive", or is based on the premise that "acting keeps you alive"? Do you think that's what Reagan meant? Do you think "trust, but verify" means don't be PROactive? If so, what makes you think that? If not, why did you feel compelled to say this? I just don't get where you're getting this stuff.
Your own words of course.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head
After all, the whole point of Reagan's original "trust, but verify" policy is you're really NOT trusting (otherwise you would have no need to verify), you're just acting like you are trusting (because acting like you don't trust can be problematic in and of itself).
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 09:11 PM
  #72  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Where did you get the "keeps you alive" part of "acting keeps you alive"?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 09:27 PM
  #73  
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Why bother? After all, "even a car stopped with a driver looking straight at you may pull out, even after you've supossedly 'verified' the driver has stopped for you.
I fully agree with this... I have been hit** by a motorist that was fully stopped at a stop sign and looked directly at me. That driver then chose to leave the stop sign. **(technically I actually hit the car, the car did not hit me. The driver was cited for failing to yield ROW.)

I plowed into the car at about 20 MPH. There was no time for me to react as the motorist pulled out at the last second. I was well into the intersection at the time and I was moving fast. There was no time for reaction. Do the math... if the average street is some 30 feet wide, and you are moving at 20 MPH and are already into the intersection... how much time do you have to react in less than 10 feet of road at 20MPH? At 20MPH, I had less than 1/2 a second to react.

Any cyclist that firmly believes they can "quick draw" react, in time, in such a situation is lying to themselves. My collision occured back in about 1984 or so... and I had much quicker reaction times back then.

If a cyclist is moving at 35MPH, you are moving at 51 feet per second. If a stopped car suddenly leaves a stop sign while you are entering even a wide intersection... can you stop or swerve at 35MPH, in less then 1/2 second? Ever try it?

Some folks here claim to often ride at 35MPH. A good cyclist can easily do 20MPH.

I know Helmet Head likes to say that we are responsible for our own safety while on a bike... but I doubt even he could react that fast. Remember, we are talking about recognizing the situation AND reacting, in less than 1/2 a second. The driver was fully stopped... and it was not a quick stop. I had "verified and trusted."

Yeah, some cyclists are "sure" they know to react in such situations. Others have been there and done that... and have the scars to prove it. Just for the record, I believe Hurst also has scars.

Last edited by genec; 03-01-07 at 09:37 PM.
genec is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:03 PM
  #74  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Yeah, some cyclists are "sure" they know to react in such situations. Others have been there and done that... and have the scars to prove it. Just for the record, I believe Hurst also has scars.
For the record, I don't have scars from bike crashes (with cars or otherwise).

From what I can tell from your description, you trusted but did not verify. You trusted blindly, and by the time you realized your trust was misplaced, it was already too late.

It's not like you didn't see him there. It's not like you knew he had noticed you. Yet you allowed yourself to be in a situation where your safety depended on him noticing you. If I recall correctly, you were on a downhill and were reluctant to slow down because you did not want to give up momentum. Slowing down might also indicate you were yielding.

At 35 mph you're moving about 50 feet per second. That means you can clear the entire 30' intersection in less than a second. On the other hand, the driver had his car at a dead stop. He had to move across the opposite direction lanes before he even came close to being in your path. I just can't believe that you had your eyes and attention on him (per but verify) when he proceeded to go.

Was he crossing the intersection, or turning left?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-01-07, 11:12 PM
  #75  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
If you used your bunk "trust, but verify' nonsense out there in the real time cycling world, mr head, I have sincere doubts you'd be able to ride far at all. as a cyclist, you don't get to 'verify' anything. Is this another feint to explain how you get cars to slow down behind you noticably, because of your fear of overtaking traffic?

using a cold war slogan coined to explain why america wasn't following disarmarment treaties and applying it to cycling is bunk sophistry of the lowest order.

you can explain and explain and attempt to define exactly what you mean, mr. head, and when I'm actually out bicycling and think about your little catch phrase, I LAUGH. ridiculous make believe. you don't get to verify a car&driver isn't going to do anything,

a cyclist needs to trust they won't and position yourself like they will.

trust but verify. a hilarious borrowed construct of the great armchair rider.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-02-07 at 01:30 AM.
Bekologist is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.