Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 290
  1. #176
    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
    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.
    Wrong, the leading cause of this is due to the cyclist not chewing gum. Statistics show that more cyclists are likely to be involved in a car vs bicycle accident if they are not chewing gum.

    See how easy it is to make a statemtn and call it the gospel? This is why I am going to ask you, can you give us ANY peer reviewd statistical information that supports your statement?
    Or to put it the way you do, "can you show me an example" or "care to back this up"?

  2. #177
    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 SSP
    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.
    I feel sorry for all the motorists that have accidentally drifted into oncoming traffic and died as a result of someone on a bike weaving in front of them (unnecessarily) and taking up valuable cognitive processing resources in trying to work out if they are a hazard .

  3. #178
    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
    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.
    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.
    Whether they 'might' see cannot be relevant to how you ride if you actually never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you....

    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.
    Chip, you're skimming or something. I'm not telling you how to ride. I'm trying to illustrate - by using the hypothetical example of riding at night dressed in black - of how you would actually have to ride if you actually never assumed anyone saw you. The point is riding during the day in bright clothing is radically different from riding at night in dark clothing with no lights because during the day you are seen, and you do assume you are seen. If you really did never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you... then you would have to ride just like invisible cyclists dressed in black ride at night.

  4. #179
    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
    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.
    Your stats show that from-behind crashes are "but a small fraction of the deaths". I've vehemently agreed with this 3 or 4 times now. The "I didn't see you statement" statement above I made was in general, and had nothing to do with from-behind crashes.

    "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".

  5. #180
    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
    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?
    Wrong, the leading cause of this is due to the cyclist not chewing gum. Statistics show that more cyclists are likely to be involved in a car vs bicycle accident if they are not chewing gum.

    See how easy it is to make a statemtn and call it the gospel? This is why I am going to ask you, can you give us ANY peer reviewd statistical information that supports your statement?
    Or to put it the way you do, "can you show me an example" or "care to back this up"?
    No, for the 5th time (or so), such stats are available.

    Similarly, no stats are available that say riding in the bike lane makes you safer, yet that's where you believe you are safer. Why?

    The point is, the stats are not available to tell us either way. Yet we still have to decide where to ride.

    I spell out my reasons for my choices as best as I can. Of course they're not based in rock solid scientific studies that are not available, so they're easy to knock for not being based in rock solid scientific studies. In the mean time, there are NO reasons specified for believing riding in the bike lane is safer, yet that's where you feel safer. Why?

  6. #181
    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
    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?
    Adjusting your socks is one thing.

    But deciding whether now is a good time to change the radio, or waiting until you're past that construction THAT YOU NOTICED is quite another.

    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.
    Not according to the latest cog sci research I've read.

  7. #182
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    pj7, it's not going to get you anywhere. You are arguing against someone with such a tremendous phobia about vehicles behind him that you are not going to get through. He's even over the top on this issue in his own VC inner circle. There is NOBODY out there who believes so adamantly that traffic coming up behind absolutely MUST show some change in direction AND slow down AND stay slowed down as they pass. To everybody else in the world, being passed by faster same direction traffic is a mundane occurence barely deserving any thought.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  8. #183
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Whether they 'might' see cannot be relevant to how you ride if you actually never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you....


    Chip, you're skimming or something. I'm not telling you how to ride. I'm trying to illustrate - by using the hypothetical example of riding at night dressed in black - of how you would actually have to ride if you actually never assumed anyone saw you. The point is riding during the day in bright clothing is radically different from riding at night in dark clothing with no lights because during the day you are seen, and you do assume you are seen. If you really did never assume anyone sees you or is paying attention to you... then you would have to ride just like invisible cyclists dressed in black ride at night.
    HH, you are being deliberately thick here I suspect. Can you not see the difference between ASSUMING nobody sees you - an assumption, and doing everything you can to be visible - AN ACTION. After all this time do you still not understand the concept of planning for Murphy? That does not mean I have to ride like someone WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEEN, which is the point of riding ninja at night. It also means that I don't rely on telepathy, cryptic signals, eye contact and such to 'confirm' someone sees me - I assume they do not see me until their actions make the point moot. I save my telepathy for forcing idiots off the road so I can assault them.
    "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. #184
    Commuter JohnBrooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southern Maine
    My Bikes
    2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
    Posts
    2,568
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    The only incidents where people have yelled at me, including the one where a guy saw it fit to get out of his car, were on narrow lanes. Basically all the times when I have felt threatened or in danger by cars or drivers (i.e. unintentional and intentional harm) have been in narrow lanes.
    I suspect motorists tend to feel that cyclists should not be using roads that narrow, since there's no way to safely pass the bicycle. In fact, we had a letter to the editor last summer that took pretty much that attitude, about a particular road around here.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadfiNch on Commuting forum
    What's the point of a bike if you can only ride it on weekends, and you can't even carry anything with you?!
    Portland Maine Bicycle Commuting Meetup

  10. #185
    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
    No, for the 5th time (or so), such stats are available.
    Then why do you keep saying "more common" and "in most cases" and other such terms that hint at some sort of statistical information?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Similarly, no stats are available that say riding in the bike lane makes you safer, yet that's where you believe you are safer. Why?
    I never said I think you are safer there. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SAYING that you are just as safe there. I am a proponent of riding in the bike lane or on the road, whichever is more comfortable and fun for YOU (the person riding).
    Shame on you, putting words in my mouth? Now comes the personal attacks again right? I'll save you the time.
    I have an IQ below 110.
    I have reading comprehension problems.
    I have issues with understanding written English.
    Did I forget something?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    The point is, the stats are not available to tell us either way. Yet we still have to decide where to ride.
    Then stop talking like there is information out there "proving" this. I have already stated how you do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I spell out my reasons for my choices as best as I can. Of course they're not based in rock solid scientific studies that are not available, so they're easy to knock for not being based in rock solid scientific studies. In the mean time, there are NO reasons specified for believing riding in the bike lane is safer, yet that's where you feel safer. Why?
    No, that's where I feel more comfortable and think is funner to ride. But I do think that the shoulder/bike lane is safer to take in most circumstances, which I have already explained, over and over and over and over... god I'm going to vomit.
    Shame on you for putting words in my mouth again.
    I shall have to smack your hand with a ruler if you do it again.

  11. #186
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Adjusting your socks is one thing.

    But deciding whether now is a good time to change the radio, or waiting until you're past that construction THAT YOU NOTICED is quite another.
    Actually it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Not according to the latest cog sci research I've read.
    Spend some time in law enforcement and you'll get the real world view.
    "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

  12. #187
    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
    HH, you are being deliberately thick here I suspect. Can you not see the difference between ASSUMING nobody sees you - an assumption, and doing everything you can to be visible - AN ACTION. After all this time do you still not understand the concept of planning for Murphy? That does not mean I have to ride like someone WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEEN, which is the point of riding ninja at night. It also means that I don't rely on telepathy, cryptic signals, eye contact and such to 'confirm' someone sees me - I assume they do not see me until their actions make the point moot. I save my telepathy for forcing idiots off the road so I can assault them.
    Slow down. Whether you want to be seen or not, whether you're dressed in black at night or in orange and green during the day, IF you're riding under the assumption that you are never seen, you must ride the same way.

    If you ride any different in orange/green during the day than you ride in black during the night, then during the day you must be assuming that you are seen. Otherwise, why would your riding be different?

  13. #188
    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
    Slow down. Whether you want to be seen or not, whether you're dressed in black at night or in orange and green during the day, IF you're riding under the assumption that you are never seen, you must ride the same way.

    If you ride any different in orange/green during the day than you ride in black during the night, then during the day you must be assuming that you are seen. Otherwise, why would your riding be different?
    because bright colors make me want to dance!!!

    /me starts shaking his ass like there's no tomorrow

  14. #189
    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
    Then why do you keep saying "more common" and "in most cases" and other such terms that hint at some sort of statistical information?
    I've provided the reasons I believe the likelihoods are different. I'm not going to repeat them.


    I never said I think you are safer there. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SAYING that you are just as safe there.
    Sigh. Which takes us back 2 pages or so to where I said you don't seem to distinguish likelihoods from possibilities. Which you denied.

    Okay, then, why do you believe the likelihoods happen to be exactly the same?

    ...
    But I do think that the shoulder/bike lane is safer to take in most circumstances, which I have already explained, over and over and over and over... god I'm going to vomit.
    You repeated that you believe it was safer over and over. You never explained why. By the way, above you said it was the same, now you're saying it IS safer? I'm confused.

    Shame on you for putting words in my mouth again.
    I shall have to smack your hand with a ruler if you do it again.
    When did I ever put words in your mouth?

  15. #190
    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
    Spend some time in law enforcement and you'll get the real world view.
    Oh yeah, high school grads understand so much more about how human cognition works than cog sci researchers. No thanks.

  16. #191
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    fyi - I'm outta here.

  17. #192
    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
    fyi - I'm outta here.
    To see your proctologist? You've clearly been "ripped a new one" in this thread (including Robert Hurst's eloquent put-down).
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  18. #193
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good god here we go again
    I'll answer these, then I'm out of here, this is just getting sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I've provided the reasons I believe the likelihoods are different. I'm not going to repeat them.
    Likelyhood eh? Well if it's "reasons you believe the likelyhood" then stop making statements using "more common" and and like, which I have already stated. You'll use those phrases in the same sentence in which you'll start making references to scientific studies, which seems like a nice way to make someone think that the two are related.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Sigh. Which takes us back 2 pages or so to where I said you don't seem to distinguish likelihoods from possibilities. Which you denied.
    What the hell does this have to do with the statement I made? I think you are just as safe on a shoulder or bike lane as you are on the road. period, plain and simple. where in the hell did I say "likely" and "possible"?
    nevermind, don't even answer that, I'm scared to see where it morphs next

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Okay, then, why do you believe the likelihoods happen to be exactly the same?
    hrm, did I say likelyhood? But i'll answer it. I think they are just as safe as one another because there is no damned information that tells me one is safer than another other than your ramblings!

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    You repeated that you believe it was safer over and over. You never explained why. By the way, above you said it was the same, now you're saying it IS safer? I'm confused.
    gah!! does one need an explaination for a belief? And I said that I think the shoulder/bike lane is safer in most circumstances that I described in my earlier posts. Oh I see, I put a comma in there, maybe I have typing comprehension problems too huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    When did I ever put words in your mouth?
    please refer to every damned thing you have ever written

    ooh, break time

  19. #194
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Slow down. Whether you want to be seen or not, whether you're dressed in black at night or in orange and green during the day, IF you're riding under the assumption that you are never seen, you must ride the same way.

    If you ride any different in orange/green during the day than you ride in black during the night, then during the day you must be assuming that you are seen. Otherwise, why would your riding be different?
    Why can't you understand the simple difference between assuming you are not seen and not wanting to be seen?
    "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. #195
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Oh yeah, high school grads understand so much more about how human cognition works than cog sci researchers. No thanks.
    What? Are you trying to say that those engaged in law enforcement only have a high school education and thus cannot understand what they deal with daily in the real world? I guess cops and ex-cops can't get educations nor have degrees in things like Human Factors Engineering either. You are piece of work, 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

  21. #196
    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)
    I think I have just been involved in my first off topic, VC, bashing head against the wall, thread. I feel slightly dirty at the end of it so I will go for a ride, and maybe have some pie. My final advice ...

    Plan for Murphy (like that a lot chip) read my new sig and then just go out and have a ride for the sheer enjoyment of it.
    Fight Club - "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

  22. #197
    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
    Oh yeah, high school grads understand so much more about how human cognition works than cog sci researchers. No thanks.
    Funny that you should appeal to authority, when noted cycling authority and published author Robert Hurst so eloquently took you to task in post 157:

    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.
    and,

    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.
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  23. #198
    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
    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.
    You are giving the impression of someone trying to wish evidence into existence. Please take a deep breath, step back and look at the big picture.

    First of all, on what basis are you deciding whether someone was 'drifted into' or just plain hit? News reports? Internet rumors? Please keep in mind that this information may not even make it into police reports. Just because there is a big wide shoulder that is often used for cycling doesn't mean any particular victim was in that shoulder at the time of the incident. How can you be sure an 'inadvertent drift' isn't really caused by the cyclist's drifting or an inadvertent swerve? Etc., etc. There seem to be very few incidents where the circumstances are clearly apparent (e.g. the texting teen in Littleton who killed an esteemed BF member), and the victims usually aren't available for interviews.

    Second, even if we could get perfect information on these incidents, the only way we could begin to compare the relative danger of the two passing situations (cyclist in the travel lane vs. in the 'margin') would be to determine not just the number of collisions but the total amount of safe encounters/passes that occur in each situation. And we don't have that information. What percentage of the total number of passes do you think we could safely place in either category? It's fine to ask these questions; but let's not pretend that any answers we might come up with are based on anything other than hairbrained conjecture.

    Third, I've seen such collisions with my own eyes. And it happened to my own girlfriend, who is an extremely accomplished and experienced cyclist, in broad daylight. So I understand enough to know that these things can happen, whether you're in the lane or not.

    Either way you're talking about a collision that is relatively rare, but deadly. You may be right that cyclists in the lane are more likely to be noticed by approaching drivers. The problem is, what if they don't. Then you are in the worst possible place. You just went all in and got knocked out of the game. If you put all your eggs in that basket you may not even get a chance to count your chickens before they hatch. Etc.

    Robert

  24. #199
    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 RobertHurst
    Either way you're talking about a collision that is relatively rare, but deadly. You may be right that cyclists in the lane are more likely to be noticed by approaching drivers. The problem is, what if they don't. Then you are in the worst possible place. You just went all in and got knocked out of the game. If you put all your eggs in that basket you may not even get a chance to count your chickens before they hatch. Etc.
    Robert
    +1
    As usual, someone expresses it better than I ever could.

    6 of one, half a dozen of another, just enjoy your ride and understand that you can never fully control something that is as inherently chaotic as traffic.
    Fight Club - "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

  25. #200
    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
    Either way you're talking about a collision that is relatively rare, but deadly. You may be right that cyclists in the lane are more likely to be noticed by approaching drivers. The problem is, what if they don't. Then you are in the worst possible place. You just went all in and got knocked out of the game. If you put all your eggs in that basket you may not even get a chance to count your chickens before they hatch. Etc.
    You guys are incredible. I find it hard to believe that you have all actually read what is being written, understood it, then typed your response. It seems like most of you have cherry picked comments (SSP being the worst offender here, constantly referring to weaving back and forth across the bike lane line) and then responded to them as if that's all that was said.

    HH has never said to place yourself in the traffic lane and then sit there no matter what. Where did you read this, Robert? In what post did HH fail to make it clear that after verifying that a motorist has seen you, or after realizing that they have not reacted to your presence (a very rare case indeed), if you have the space to the right you move into it. On long stretches of intersectionless road with big gaps in traffic (where this technique is useful for avoiding inadvertent drift) it would take both you, the cyclist, completely missing the approaching vehicle and not moving, and the approaching motorist completely missing the presence of the cyclist for a collision to occur.

    If you take a look at the bike lane deaths thread, you will see plenty of examples of motorists choosing to take their attention off the road to attend to a distraction and drifting into the bike lane/shoulder into a cyclist. Whether these motorists were drunk or just stupid is irrelevant. They made it down the road as far as they did because they were paying enough attention to stay on the road. If they had that much attention to give to the road in front of them, doesn't it make sense that they would also notice a cyclist up ahead in their path? Doesn't the fact that motorists rear ending cyclists on narrow roads, where the cyclist HAS to be in the path of motorist, is such a rare occasion, yet we have heard about plenty of collisions occuring where the cyclist was not in the intended path of the motorist (see the tragedy in Solana beach thread for a recent one) mean anything to anybody?

    And one last time, the whole point of eschewing bike lanes/shoulders in the first place is to avoid all of the collisions that so often happen to cyclists, like right and left hooks, or close passes where the cyclist gets clipped. Avoiding the evil drift is a side benefit that you get for no extra effort over what you'd be doing on any road with many intersections (riding in a centerish position in the lane, monitoring to the rear periodically, and moving right when safe and reasonable).

    What makes this concept so hard to understand?

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •