Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 290
  1. #151
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    HH, perhaps the problem is, as I have mentioned to you before, is that many of us ARE drivers and we know how we drive and what is relevant to us - and we plain don't buy what you are selling because it does not jibe with our own experience. We KNOW what our minds process while driving.
    True, so true. I've driver for more than 20 years, and only ridden a bike for 10. so I have more experience driving than anything and ALL of my persepctives come from that.

  2. #152
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    Never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you...if you follow that simple rule, you don't have to worry about confirming anything.
    That would be ideal, but in practice it's very impractical. It's the equivalent of assuming you're invisible. Try riding your bike at night dressed in black with no lights. Doing so requires you to actually do what you're suggesting: Never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you. And it makes it virtually impossible to ride, especially in any kind of real traffic situations.

    Now, if you are going to dress in black and ride without lights on a long intersectionless stretch of road with light intermittent traffic, the bike lane is probably a relatively good place to be, but you are betting that no one will drift into you. What I'm saying is that bet isn't much better during the day in bright clothing, because you're not as conspicuous, cognitively, when riding in the bike lane, as you might think you are.

  3. #153
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Yes. This is probably correct. According to the cognitive science experts who study inattentional blindness, we do believe we KNOW what our minds process, but in actuality we do not.
    Ummm.... heh
    and do YOU believe that?

  4. #154
    Senior Member The other Inane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brisvegas
    My Bikes
    Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Yes. This is probably correct. According to the cognitive science experts who study inattentional blindness, we do believe we KNOW what our minds process, but in actuality we do not.
    Please post links to relevant articles/studies, I am genuinely interested in anything relating to saccade eye movements, cognition and how these relate to driving.

  5. #155
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The other Inane
    Please post links to relevant articles/studies, I am genuinely interested in anything relating to saccade eye movements, cognition and how these relate to driving.
    I have tourettesyndrome and one of my tics is that my eyes dart in all directions, uncontrollably of course. You could write a book from all of my observances.

  6. #156
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Yes. This is probably correct. According to the cognitive science experts who study inattentional blindness, we do believe we KNOW what our minds process, but in actuality we do not.
    Who says that we need to 'know' what our minds process? Our minds process tons of data that we are never consciously aware of. Just because people can't recall seeing a gorilla on a basketball court does not mean that their senses didn't notice or that their minds did not process the information. That is where your pet example was flawed - confusing ones ability to recall information with one's ability to process information. Indeed, are you now contradicting your own 'autopilot', where claim you do things while riding without even thinking about it. Are you saying that while on autopilot, you are apt to have inattentional blindness because a car is two lanes over and make a cell phone call?
    "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

  7. #157
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    [...]
    The first point is that the drifts into cyclist in bike lane/shoulder type of overtaking collisions appears to be more common than the collides into the back of a cyclist who was riding directly in his path type of crash (despite the 10s of millions of miles cyclists in the U.S. on narrow roads where it is impossible to ride anywhere but direcitn in the path of motorists).
    Eh? I pop in from work and this is the first thing I see. I implore you to stop making stuff up HH! You should know that I generally don't implore anyone to do anything. But you must stop this madness. There is absolutely no substantive evidence to support the assertion you made here; you will not be able to wish such evidence into existence, no matter how hard you try. In fact the 'reasoning' you use above supports the opposite conclusion -- think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    The Culture of Fear argument (and ultimately my main point) is that the fact that both types are so rare overall indicates that neither should be taken into account in terms of deciding where to ride. I agree. That's why I ride where I ride based on being further left is better for seeing and preparing for potential conflicts in front of me.
    Providing marginal benefit at best on the exurban roads that BF members (perhaps cyclists in general) are most concerned about. Leftward positioning is useful in densely packed areas with lots of wayward pedestrians, side parking, alleys and intersections, places where you usually can't even see the curb much less get next to it. Not nearly so useful elsewhere.

    Robert

  8. #158
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    That would be ideal, but in practice it's very impractical. It's the equivalent of assuming you're invisible. Try riding your bike at night dressed in black with no lights. Doing so requires you to actually do what you're suggesting: Never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you. And it makes it virtually impossible to ride, especially in any kind of real traffic situations.

    Now, if you are going to dress in black and ride without lights on a long intersectionless stretch of road with light intermittent traffic, the bike lane is probably a relatively good place to be, but you are betting that no one will drift into you. What I'm saying is that bet isn't much better during the day in bright clothing, because you're not as conspicuous, cognitively, when riding in the bike lane, as you might think you are.
    No, HH, you are going off on a tangent here. What does assuming you are invisible have to do with the act of trying to be invisible? That makes no sense. Just because I assume nobody sees me does not mean that I don't do everything possible to ensure that they 'might' see me.

    Again, you are trying to tell me how I ride, think or act, something you have no knowledge or understanding of and the reason why so many people don't take you seriously or respect your views. If you'd quit trying to tell people what they think or why they do things, you might have a lot better luck getting them to pay attention to the idea you are trying to present.
    "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

  9. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,849
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    Leftward positioning is useful in densely packed areas with lots of wayward pedestrians, side parking, alleys and intersections, places where you usually can't even see the curb much less get next to it. Not nearly so useful elsewhere.
    Could you clarify this statement more? My interpretation of it may be flawed but as it stands (in my mind) it contradicts everything I have experienced riding on exurban roads.

  10. #160
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    True, so true. I've driver for more than 20 years, and only ridden a bike for 10. so I have more experience driving than anything and ALL of my persepctives come from that.
    According to the cognitive science experts who study inattentional blindness, we do believe we KNOW what our minds process, but in actuality we do not.

    The problem is, we don't notice what we don't notice, by definition.
    We only notice what we do notice.
    So we think we're a lot better at noticing that we really are, and we assume others should be as good as we think we are.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 03-22-07 at 06:57 PM.

  11. #161
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The other Inane
    Please post links to relevant articles/studies, I am genuinely interested in anything relating to saccade eye movements, cognition and how these relate to driving.
    http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...blindness.html

    http://hubel.sfasu.edu/courseinfo/SL..._blindness.htm

  12. #162
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    Eh? I pop in from work and this is the first thing I see. I implore you to stop making stuff up HH! You should know that I generally don't implore anyone to do anything. But you must stop this madness. There is absolutely no substantive evidence to support the assertion you made here; you will not be able to wish such evidence into existence, no matter how hard you try. In fact the 'reasoning' you use above supports the opposite conclusion -- think about it.
    Well, that's how it appears to me based on paying attention to car-bike crashes and seeing how often cyclists are drifted into, and how rarely they are directly crashed into from behind (I'm not saying it never happens, just less often than the drifting), especially considering how many roads there are where cyclists have no choice but to ride in the path of same direction traffic behind them.


    Providing marginal benefit at best on the exurban roads that BF members (perhaps cyclists in general) are most concerned about. Leftward positioning is useful in densely packed areas with lots of wayward pedestrians, side parking, alleys and intersections, places where you usually can't even see the curb much less get next to it. Not nearly so useful elsewhere.

    Robert
    Exurban roads also have intersections, driveway, oncoming traffic, etc.

  13. #163
    SSP
    SSP is offline
    Software for Cyclists SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Redding, California
    My Bikes
    Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
    Posts
    4,618
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Then I'm not doing a very good job of making my point.
    You've done a very good job of making your point...God knows you've spent enough bandwidth on it (quite literally) to write a book!

    It's just that many of us, who collectively have many decades of cycling experience, reject your "point" as unproven, irrelevant and/or unnecessary.

    Edit: as do noted cycling authorities like Robert Hurst (see post #157, where he basically "rips you a new one").
    Last edited by SSP; 03-22-07 at 08:16 PM.
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  14. #164
    Two H's!!! TWO!!!!! chephy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    4,169
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The area around Milton, ON - a small town close to Toronto where my parents live - has a lot of recreational cyclists and a lot of extremely narrow country roads that have gotten much much busier in the last few years. Within the last few years I heard several reports of cyclists being hit from behind on those roads; at least one of those crashes resulted in death. It happened during the day, good visibility conditions: the driver of a wide truck that struck the cyclist misjudged the distance and hit the cyclist on the head with a mirror, causing him to lose balance and fall, I believe, under the wheels of the truck.

    I rode on those roads a few times myself, to visit my parents. Scary stuff.

  15. #165
    Senior Member The other Inane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brisvegas
    My Bikes
    Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wouldn't it make sense to not be in the path of traffic with all these inattentive drivers around. Provided it is safe to not be in their path of course. Shouldn't you be a strict facilities/bike path advocate if you believe that this is a major cause of "hit from behind" accidents?

  16. #166
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now how about some peer reviewed articles. You said this stuff was scientific, if it is then there must be something peer reviewed. I can show you websites that look more professional than these that talk about how having sex with a dolphin can cure cancer. Even mit.edu has ****.the.skull.of.jesus.mit.edu , doesn't mean that sexual intercourse with the skull of a prophet is in anyway scientific.

  17. #167
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please....even these studies indicate that this is a phenomena that occurs 'periodically'. Common sense dictates that if it were more widespread, it would be chaos out there, with subs surfacing into ships, nurses killing patients and cars ruining the landscape. For someone who makes such a fuss about only worrying about things that are 'likely' to happen, you sure spend a lot of time worrying about lightning striking. Do you have any data at all showing how many cyclists off to the side are hit due to 'inadvertent drift' or inattentivenes from drivers coming up from the rear? Of course you don't, so why do you try to make it out to be something that should be on the cyclist's top ten threats list?

    All you keep doing is futher proving that 'planning for Murphy' is the best defense...expect the other guy to do the stupidest thing possible and plan your options accordingly - which includes assuming that nobody sees you.
    Last edited by chipcom; 03-22-07 at 07:13 PM.
    "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

  18. #168
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SSP
    You've done a very good job of making your point...God knows you've spent enough bandwidth on it (quite literally) to write a book!

    It's just that many of us, who collectively have many decades of cycling experience, reject your "point" as unproven, irrelevant and/or unnecessary.
    Thank you for pointing out the root of the issue in far less words than I have done.
    "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

  19. #169
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The other Inane
    Wouldn't it make sense to not be in the path of traffic with all these inattentive drivers around. Provided it is safe to not be in their path of course. Shouldn't you be a strict facilities/bike path advocate if you believe that this is a major cause of "hit from behind" accidents?
    No, here is where his 'relevance' theory comes into play. He feels that drivers either don't notice us or don't consider us relevant if we are not directly in front of them, which of course is the exact opposite of at least my own experience as a driver.

    1. When I drive or ride I do not have tunnel vision, I pay attention to everything within my field of view.
    2. Even as a cyclist myself, when driving, when I see a cyclist, my first thought is to give them space because I have no idea what they are going to pull. I'm certainly not thinking 'they're in the bike lane, maybe I should put on some makeup'.
    "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

  20. #170
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    HH, perhaps the problem is, as I have mentioned to you before, is that many of us ARE drivers and we know how we drive and what is relevant to us - and we plain don't buy what you are selling because it does not jibe with our own experience. We KNOW what our minds process while driving.
    Yes. This is probably correct. According to the cognitive science experts who study inattentional blindness, we do believe we KNOW what our minds process, but in actuality we do not.
    Who says that we need to 'know' what our minds process?
    Nobody says we need to know what our minds process. I'm saying we don't know. You're saying (in red above) that we do know (at least you think you know what your mind is processing while you're driving).

    Our minds process tons of data that we are never consciously aware of.
    Indeed, that's the point. Of all that tons of data, what is brought to the attention of the conscious mind, and why?

    Consider the following two particular potential data points:
    - A cyclist up ahead in the motorist's path/lane.
    - A cyclist up ahead outside of the motorist's path/lane.

    What do you think are the relative likelihoods of each of these points to be brought to the attention of the conscious mind of the driver?


    Just because people can't recall seeing a gorilla on a basketball court does not mean that their senses didn't notice or that their minds did not process the information.
    Of course. The point is that the process deemed the presence of the gorilla to be irrelevant, and so it was never brought to the attention of the conscious mind.

    If the cyclist up ahead is deemed to be similarly irrelevant, then when the conscious mind decides how long it can look away from the road to attend to a distraction, it cannot take the presence of the cyclist into account, since it is not aware of that presence.

    That is where your pet example was flawed - confusing ones ability to recall information with one's ability to process information.
    They are more closely related than you seem to realize. Have you ever heard the phrase "I didn't see you" uttered by a motorist to a bicyclist that was clearly within his line of sight? In that case the data, the cyclist, was there, just like the gorilla. And, just like the gorilla, the cyclist was deemed irrelevant, and, so, the motorist cut right in front of the cyclist (or whatever the situation is).

    Indeed, are you now contradicting your own 'autopilot', where claim you do things while riding without even thinking about it. Are you saying that while on autopilot, you are apt to have inattentional blindness because a car is two lanes over and make a cell phone call?
    You are confusing instinctual/unconscious decisions with conscious ones. The decision to take your eyes off the road for a few seconds is conscious, and can only be made using information that the conscious mind is aware of.
    When you instinctively avoid a hazard, it is your unconscious that is making the decision, and it is "aware" of information that the conscious is not aware of.

    Bottom line: motorists drift into unnoticed cyclists riding in bike lanes and shoulders too often.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 03-22-07 at 07:20 PM.

  21. #171
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    they alos hit cyclists on the road way too often

  22. #172
    SSP
    SSP is offline
    Software for Cyclists SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Redding, California
    My Bikes
    Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
    Posts
    4,618
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    No, here is where his 'relevance' theory comes into play. He feels that drivers either don't notice us or don't consider us relevant if we are not directly in front of them, which of course is the exact opposite of at least my own experience as a driver.

    1. When I drive or ride I do not have tunnel vision, I pay attention to everything within my field of view.
    2. Even as a cyclist myself, when driving, when I see a cyclist, my first thought is to give them space because I have no idea what they are going to pull. I'm certainly not thinking 'they're in the bike lane, maybe I should put on some makeup'.
    Weaving back and forth over the line, when there's a perfectly suitable debris-free bike lane available, probably causes overtaking traffic to assume that HH is intoxicated. I know that if I saw a cyclist up ahead going back and forth over the bike lane stripe that would be my first thought.
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  23. #173
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chephy
    The area around Milton, ON - a small town close to Toronto where my parents live - has a lot of recreational cyclists and a lot of extremely narrow country roads that have gotten much much busier in the last few years. Within the last few years I heard several reports of cyclists being hit from behind on those roads; at least one of those crashes resulted in death. It happened during the day, good visibility conditions: the driver of a wide truck that struck the cyclist misjudged the distance and hit the cyclist on the head with a mirror, causing him to lose balance and fall, I believe, under the wheels of the truck.

    I rode on those roads a few times myself, to visit my parents. Scary stuff.
    Noticing the cyclist and misjudging the distance is something else again (the typical contributory cause in these situations is the cyclist riding too far to the right, and inviting motorists to squeeze by).

    I'm talking about the relative rarity of a motorist running right into the back of a cyclist who is riding right in front of him in his path, because he never noticed him, as compared to the relatively more common (or so it seems to me) type of crash where a motorist drifts into a cyclist riding in an adjacent bike lane or shoulder.

  24. #174
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    You are confusing instinctual/unconscious decisions with conscious ones. The decision to take your eyes off the road for a few seconds is conscious, and can only be made using information that the conscious mind is aware of.
    When you instinctively avoid a hazard, it is your unconscious that is making the decision, and it is "aware" of information that the conscious is not aware of.
    No HH, it is you that is confused. Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote? You don't think not taking your eyes of the road is just as much 'instinctively avoiding a hazard'? Again, when you are on 'autopilot' what keeps you from reaching down to adjust your socks?

    Bottom line: motorists drift into unnoticed cyclists riding in bike lanes and shoulders too often.

    Too often, yes...just one is too often. It's just not nearly as often as you try to make it out to be, nor does a painted line make it happen more or less often...that anyone can prove.

    Edit: and as far as 'I didn't see him/her/you', that is a line of crap more often than not. It's a CYA response, not an indication that they did not see you.
    "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

  25. #175
    Senior Member The other Inane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brisvegas
    My Bikes
    Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    They are more closely related than you seem to realize. Have you ever heard the phrase "I didn't see you" uttered by a motorist to a bicyclist that was clearly within his line of sight?
    I have already posted solid stats that this is but a small fraction of the deaths (on Australian) roads, especially in urban/daylight conditions.

    quote
    "In the 46 crashes where the cyclist was run over from behind, 10 of the motor
    vehicle drivers failed to observe the cyclist, 5 drivers were under the influence
    of alcohol or drugs and the vision of 5 drivers was obscured for some reason,
    e.g. glare. For the other crashes, the reasons were many and varied or unknown.
    "
    Thats 10 out of over 200. And is equal to the number that had obscured vision or were drunk. Sure it is 10 too many but is pretty small considering that cycling is NOT THAT DANGEROUS to begin with.

    I am also dubious as to my ability to implement any strategy that would avoid this situation for me. I believe that all the ones I have contemplated (including yours) will either be ineffective or would expose me to more risk of "death by other".

    Bottom line: motorists drift into unnoticed cyclists riding in bike lanes and shoulders too often.
    [/QUOTE]

    Probably true but I still call shenanigans on you.

    BOTTOM LINE: Living can kill you, and probably will before you get killed from behind by a vehicle while riding your bike.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •