Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

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.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-25-07, 01:32 PM   #276
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Denigration of your experience? That was not my intent, sorry if it came off that way.

Are you agreeing to do the test, or not?
Your test is irrelevant to the issue of cyclist safety.
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 01:52 PM   #277
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSP
Your test is irrelevant to the issue of cyclist safety.
You're putting the cart before the horse. If my theory is invalid, then yes, the test is irrelevant to the issue of cyclist safety.

But our entire dispute is about whether my theory about cyclist safety is valid.

And the test is specifically relevant to your challenge of my theory. In particular, your challenge of a specific fundamental premise in my theory. Are you rescinding that challenge?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 01:56 PM   #278
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSP
No, HardHead...the question is whether doing so would enhance cyclist safety. I don't think it does...and many folks agree with my position, including noted cycling author Robert Hurst.
I know what you and Hurst think. You know what I think. We're trying to break it down to fundamental premises that my theory is based on.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 03:37 PM   #279
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You're putting the cart before the horse. If my theory is invalid, then yes, the test is irrelevant to the issue of cyclist safety.

But our entire dispute is about whether my theory about cyclist safety is valid.

And the test is specifically relevant to your challenge of my theory. In particular, your challenge of a specific fundamental premise in my theory. Are you rescinding that challenge?
I believe that I've done a more than adequate job of explaining why I, and others, think skeptically of your theory.

I don't believe the "test" you propose would have any impact on my skepticism, and I know that nothing I or anyone else would say would have any effect on your strident, single-minded defense of your theory.


Your silly "test" would do nothing more than show that drivers will react to things in the roadway...another way of conducting this test would be to hide in the bushes near the road and throw a basketball out from between parked cars.

But just because drivers would "react" doesn't mean that riding in the roadway is safer than riding in a perfectly functional bike lane.
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 03:52 PM   #280
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSP
Yet another HH splitting of hairs, Wall of Words(TM), and denigration of the experience of others.

Please define "this".

BTW - with a head as hard as yours, you don't need to wear a helmet.

FWIW, as I've said several times...I don't believe the 6 foot difference in lateral position that we're talking about (that is, 6 feet prior to your weave back to the right), has any significant impact on cyclist safety.
There's no hair splitting going on here. Either you've tested riding out in the middle of the lane during gaps and observed drivers reactions (which earlier you stated you did), or you haven't and you are simply stating your assumptions that their reactions to your presence won't be any different, which, of course, is a physical impossibility and is the reason why we started questioning whether you've really tried it.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 04:23 PM   #281
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejack951
There's no hair splitting going on here. Either you've tested riding out in the middle of the lane during gaps and observed drivers reactions (which earlier you stated you did), or you haven't and you are simply stating your assumptions that their reactions to your presence won't be any different, which, of course, is a physical impossibility and is the reason why we started questioning whether you've really tried it.
I question your premise...clearly drivers will "react" to things in the roadway (just hide between parked cars and roll a basketball out into the road to test this "theory" ). But, just because they'll react doesn't mean I'll be any safer in the roadway, than in a perfectly serviceable bike lane.
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 04:24 PM   #282
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head

That's the real issue here, and why I object to the idea that cyclists should ride in traffic "never assuming they are seen": it makes riding in traffic impossible.
Only to a relative noob like you, HH.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 09:10 PM   #283
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Okay, I'm confused. How can you be talking about "cyclists off to the side of the lane" if you're talking exclusively about narrow lanes where being off to the side is not possible?
Because you started off calling the thread "narrow lane crashes", and then said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In particular, I'm interested in what that likelihood is compared to the likelihood of getting accidentally drifted into when riding adjacent to a traffic lane in a shoulder or bike lane.
Hence, I'm comparing the risks of taking a narrow lane to the risks of riding off the the side on a shoulder or WOL. They are different road types, but comparing them was your idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
A better comparision would be: of all the motorcyclists you know, how many have been rear-ended?
Except how often are motorcyclists actually overtaken by cars from behind, compared to us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Why is that a better comparison? Because if it is true, as I believe it to be, that motorists behind cageless cyclists generally pay more attention than motorists behind caged vehicles, then the fact that almost everyone you know who drives a car has been in at least a minor hit-from-behind collision is not relevant to this discussion.
This sounds less like a logical argument and more like a leap of faith in the attention-grabbing novelty of a cyclist appearing in the front windshield.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It is a solution. There is no such thing as risk-free activity. At some point you have to realize the likelihood of harm is so small that it's worth doing.
I think we all made that realization a while ago or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I still don't think it's too much to ask people to look where they're going, or anyone is being paranoid by preferring to be off to the side of the traveled portion of the road in traffic.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 11:39 PM   #284
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSP
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJack951
There's no hair splitting going on here. Either you've tested riding out in the middle of the lane during gaps and observed drivers reactions (which earlier you stated you did), or you haven't and you are simply stating your assumptions that their reactions to your presence won't be any different, which, of course, is a physical impossibility and is the reason why we started questioning whether you've really tried it.
I question your premise...clearly drivers will "react" to things in the roadway (just hide between parked cars and roll a basketball out into the road to test this "theory" ).
That's not questioning the premise (that motorists are more likely like to notice a cyclist up ahead in their path/lane and perceive him to be relevant and meaningful than a cyclist up ahead in the bike lane), acknowledging that drivers will react to a cyclist riding up ahead in the path/lane is accepting the premise.

Quote:
But, just because they'll react doesn't mean I'll be any safer in the roadway, than in a perfectly serviceable bike lane.
You've lost me.

You explained that your objection to the argument centered on your inability to accept the premise that drivers would be able to discern differently a cyclist 1/8th of a mile up ahead in a bike lane, and a cyclist the same distance up ahead in their lane/path. You went to great lengths to explain why you could not accept this premise. So I said fine, this is easy enough to test. You seemed to agree, and said you already had. Then JJ called you on that, and you've seemingly totally backed off on the position you've been arguing for several pages now, and in two different threads.

Yet you still claim the argument overall is not persuasive. Okay, fine. Now, what specifically about the argument makes it not persuasive to you? Is it that you can't accept one or more of the premises? If so, which premise(s)? Or is oy that you believe the premises do not support the conclusion? if so, how so? Or is it not a matter of reason and logic to you? If so, then why are we even discussing this?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 11:52 PM   #285
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Okay, I'm confused. How can you be talking about "cyclists off to the side of the lane" if you're talking exclusively about narrow lanes where being off to the side is not possible?
Because you started off calling the thread "narrow lane crashes", and then said this:
...
Hence, I'm comparing the risks of taking a narrow lane to the risks of riding off the the side on a shoulder or WOL. They are different road types, but comparing them was your idea.
Yes, I know. But when I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
We are comparing the risks of:

1. Riding in center during gaps, being off to the side only when fsdt is present or approaching.
2. Being off to the side the entire time.
You objected, in #365, saying: "... but my examples dealt with accidents from cyclists taking narrow lanes, as the thread title suggests."

Quote:
Except how often are motorcyclists actually overtaken by cars from behind, compared to us?
That's a separate issue. You're attempting to use the significance of how often cars are rear-ended by cars with respect to the potential dangers of bicyclists taking the lane. I'm saying a better comparison than cars rear-ended-by-cars is motorcyclists rear-ended-by-cars. If your objection to that is how rarely motorcyclists are overtaken by cars from behind, I'd say it's probably about the same as cars overtaken by cars.

Quote:
This sounds less like a logical argument and more like a leap of faith in the attention-grabbing novelty of a cyclist appearing in the front windshield.
Frankly, I'm lost. I'm not sure what part of my argument you have an issue with, much less why. You seem to jump around all over the place.

Quote:
I think we all made that realization a while ago or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I still don't think it's too much to ask people to look where they're going, or anyone is being paranoid by preferring to be off to the side of the traveled portion of the road in traffic.
How does this address anything in my argument?

A few posts back in our discussion I identified the main premises in my argument. Do you have an issue with any of them? If so, which ones? If not, do you feel they do not support the conclusion? What is your issue with what I'm arguing?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 05:53 AM   #286
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
A better comparision would be: of all the motorcyclists you know, how many have been rear-ended?
Please refer to post #14, made by yours truely.
I've never been hit from behind while in my bicycle, but have while on my motorcycle.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 10:44 AM   #287
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
You said "cyclist" and not just "bicyclist" right? I was on my old HD a few years ago riding to work one morning, it was at 6:45AM in the summer months and the sun was coming up to the east, I was heading north on Romeo Plank in Macomb Township, MI between 22 Mile Rd. and 23 Mile Rd. I had my lights on and was riding at appx 40mph. If I still had the police report I could verify the details. I was hit completely from behind by a motorist and went down on my right side, the bike slid away from me and we both slid off to the right of the road. I ended up in the ditch, the bike cleared the ditch and ended up in the field. The damage to me was just a fractured elbow and a donation of a good ammount of leg flesh to the asphalt gods. It took me over a year and a half to get the old sow back on the road again.
The driver claimed to the officer that he saw me, but did not know how far ahead of him I was and he was beginning to gain speed in order to overtake me. By the time I realized that I was too close for him he had already become my impromptu proctologist.
If I would have been on my bicycle I'd most likely not be here typing this post. I HAVE ridden my bike to and from work when I was employed up that way, and only had a few incidents (you can search for my post regarding some fat chic barking at me, about 2 years ago), but was always a little weary ever since my "incident".
No doubt it can happen, which is why whenever there is room to get out of the way before they reach me, I do.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 05:38 PM   #288
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Yes, I know. But when I wrote:

We are comparing the risks of:
1. Riding in center during gaps, being off to the side only when fsdt is present or approaching.
2. Being off to the side the entire time.

You objected, in #365
Again, I objected because you announced you are now comparing two riding styles irrelevant to the original topic, i.e. narrow lane accidents, which was what you originally solicited crash reports on, which were provided.

My question is, why did you drop that original topic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I'm saying a better comparison than cars rear-ended-by-cars is motorcyclists rear-ended-by-cars. If your objection to that is how rarely motorcyclists are overtaken by cars from behind, I'd say it's probably about the same as cars overtaken by cars.
I'd say it's less, since motorcyclists tend to move fast than cars. I don't know any active motorcyclists, although at least one motorcyclist reading this has been hit from behind, it seems. The reason for using cars rather than bikes was to get a bigger pool of local data, since cars are all over the place. There are far fewer motorbikes and bikes, hence I rarely ever see any accidents involving either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You seem to jump around all over the place.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
A few posts back in our discussion I identified the main premises in my argument. Do you have an issue with any of them?
Yep:

You say: Cyclists are much more noticeable when taking the lane ahead, and from-behind collisions are rarer than drift-over and hit the guy in the bike lane collisions.

I say: We're a bit more noticeable in the central part of the lane, and I move left during gaps in traffic just like you. But I think you're ignoring evidence if you think hit-from-behinds are rarer than drift-overs, since I have never heard of a drift-over-into-a bike-lane accident anywhere other than A&S.

You say: Even though motorists run into the back of each other, they are unlikely to run into the back of a cyclist because we are unusual and grab more attention than cars.

I say: We do grab more attention than cars. But these accidents happen with cars VERY OFTEN. We know that even minor ones are in cars would be major on a bike. We're clearly not grabbing enough attention, either off to the side OR taking the lane, as accident studies and news reports from my area suggest.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 06:08 PM   #289
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettocruiser
My question is, why did you drop that original topic?
My intent was to ask about square-on from-behind crashes in narrow lanes where the motorist never saw the cyclist riding in his path/lane in front of him, and where driving into the sun is not a factor. But I asked it wrong, and it ended up being about all kinds of narrow lane crashes.

Quote:
You say: Cyclists are much more noticeable when taking the lane ahead, and from-behind collisions are rarer than drift-over and hit the guy in the bike lane collisions.

I say: We're a bit more noticeable in the central part of the lane, and I move left during gaps in traffic just like you. But I think you're ignoring evidence if you think hit-from-behinds are rarer than drift-overs, since I have never heard of a drift-over-into-a bike-lane accident anywhere other than A&S.
I respectfully suggest that you probably never paid attention to whether a given crash involved drift into an unnoticed cyclist or not. Sometimes the word "drift" is not used, but the situation is clearly inferred. For example, it might simply say the cyclist was in the bike lane, the motorist was going in the same direction, didn't see him, and hit him. Another might say a cyclist in the shoulder was killed from behind by a hit-and-run.

But from now, start paying very close attention to overtaking collisions, in particular with respect to whether the cyclist was separated by a road edge stripe of one sort or another.

Quote:
You say: Even though motorists run into the back of each other, they are unlikely to run into the back of a cyclist because we are unusual and grab more attention than cars.

I say: We do grab more attention than cars. But these accidents happen with cars VERY OFTEN. We know that even minor ones are in cars would be major on a bike. We're clearly not grabbing enough attention, either off to the side OR taking the lane, as accident studies and news reports from my area suggest.
Do the accident studies and news reports you cite differentiate between cyclists hit square-on from behind by a motorist who simply did not see the cyclist up ahead in his path/lane and cyclists riding in stripe demarcated road margins who were drifted into?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 08:16 PM   #290
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Do the accident studies and news reports you cite differentiate between cyclists hit square-on from behind by a motorist who simply did not see the cyclist up ahead in his path/lane and cyclists riding in stripe demarcated road margins who were drifted into?
No, of course news and police reports almost never provide any meaningful information on cyclist lane position. However, they DO tend to mention when there is a bike lane. This is easily seen and reported by a police officer or journalist on the scene. Again, I think this adds up to a data collection artifact that you are interpreting to mean something.

That's why, with the two examples I provided (which as usual were light on details) were both on roads so narrow (I know from being out there) that the cyclists had to be on the traveled portion of the roadway prior to being hit.

Which, of course, was what you asked for, I think.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:51 AM.