Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 290
  1. #201
    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)
    This topic belongs in the VC forum.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  2. #202
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,714
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    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...

    What makes this concept so hard to understand?
    Maybe because the concept that by "eschewing bike lanes/shoulders" cyclists will "avoid all" of the collisions like right and left hooks, or close passes where the cyclist gets clipped - is a concept that is full of stuff. Avoid left hooks, sez who? You, HH and what other star gazers?

    Avoid close passes, sez who? You, HH and what other star gazers?

    Right hooks? A little more complicated analysis may be required, but who sez that a potential reduction in right hook risk is not replaced with an even higher overall risk from rear end collision and/or unpleasant cycling experience for those who "eschew bike lanes/shoulders?" You, HH and what other star gazers?

  3. #203
    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 joejack951
    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 brought much of this upon himself...his writing style is strident, repetitive (in the extreme), and condescending (constantly complaining that the rest of us just "don't understand").

    And now, even noted cycling authorities like Robert Hurst are chiming in to take him to task for his baseless claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    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?
    Most of us are also drivers, and know from that experience that observing a cyclist up ahead is a common occurrence...and it seems to happen without problem regardless of whether the cyclist is in the roadway or on the shoulder. When was the last time you were "surprised" by the "sudden presence" of a cyclist on the shoulder of a straight, ruralish road?

    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    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?
    As has been noted, you have no evidence on which to base your claims that "in the roadway" accidents are less common than "on the shoulder" accidents. It's entirely feasible, for instance, that for some "on the shoulder" accidents it was the cyclist who was attending to a distraction and strayed out of the bike lane. AFAIK, there are no studies showing that one or the other of those two scenarios is more common.

    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    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).
    Nobody is advocating that bikes should always be in the bike lane...lord knows I get out of them whenever it's in my best interest to do so. It's the idea that I should eschew a perfectly good bike lane on a ruralish road that is at dispute.

    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    What makes this concept so hard to understand?
    Stridency, repetitiveness, and condescension don't help.

    Lack of evidence, and assumptions about driver behavior that are inconsistent with personal experience don't help either.

    Finally, the fact that noted cycling authorities are weighing in and challenging the position...well, that pretty much seals the deal (for me, anyway...YMMV).
    Last edited by SSP; 03-23-07 at 09:31 AM.
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  4. #204
    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 sbhikes
    This topic belongs in the VC forum.
    Perhaps in the AVC sub-forum.
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  5. #205
    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 SSP
    HH has brought much of this upon himself...his writing style is strident, repetitive (in the extreme), and condescending (constantly complaining that the rest of us just "don't understand").
    So let me try to understand you here. There's two scenarios that I can think of that would cause to respond the way you do.

    #1. You really don't understand what HH is writing, you post as if you do, he corrects you, you continue to post demonstrating that you don't understand, and HH points out that you don't understand which you deem condescending.

    #2. You really do understand what HH is saying but you choose to intentionally misinterpret his words in order to try and discredit what he's saying. He corrects you, you continue to mischaracterize what's he saying, and HH points out that you don't understand which you deem condescending.

    Which one is it? In either case, how is HH not justified in claiming that you don't understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP
    And now, even noted cycling authorities like Robert Hurst are chiming in to take him to task for his baseless claims.
    Aside from Robert's anecdotal claim about his girlfriend being struck from behind, how is Robert's claim any less baseless than HH's? If you look at the bike lane death's thread, HH has plenty to base his claim on which you all seem to want to ignore.

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP
    Most of us are also drivers, and know from that experience that observing a cyclist up ahead is a common occurrence...and it seems to happen without problem regardless of whether the cyclist is in the roadway or on the shoulder. When was the last time you were "surprised" by the "sudden presence" of a cyclist on the shoulder of a straight, ruralish road?
    I'll be the first to admit that being a cyclist makes me a more attentive driver. I've never been someone to yap away on a cellphone while driving (I have fielded a few calls here and there though) but I would never consider texting or downloading ringtones or just plain taking me eyes off the road for long enough to drift completely out of my lane. But this stuff happens. There are millions of drivers out there on the roads who are not us. Those same drivers are the ones who are surprised that when they didn't yield right of way at a stop sign, or ran a red light, or drove drunk, or turned right in front of cyclist that they caused a collision.

    FWIW, I've been driving down the road with my fiancee sitting next to me, both of us watching the road and pointed out someone on the shoulder that we just passed who she completely missed. Granted she's not driving but she's looking at the same road I'm looking at. How do you explain all of the non-impaired drivers in the bike lane deaths thread who drifted into cyclists?

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP
    As has been noted, you have no evidence on which to base your claims that "in the roadway" accidents are less common than "on the shoulder" accidents. It's entirely feasible, for instance, that for some "on the shoulder" accidents it was the cyclist who was attending to a distraction and strayed out of the bike lane.
    Well why would it be characterized as happening in the shoulder if the cyclist drifted into the traffic lane? What motorist would tell the police that they drifted into the shoulder/bike lane (which is how many of these deaths are reported as happening) when really it was the cyclist who drifted? I'm not saying your case never happens as I'm sure it does. It's one good reason to be entirely sure of what's going on around you before attending to a distraction, even if you are in a bike lane/shoulder (you know, those ultra-safe spots that cyclists love to ride).

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP
    Nobody is advocating that bikes should always be in the bike lane...lord knows I get out of them whenever it's in my best interest to do so. It's the idea that I should eschew a perfectly good bike lane on a ruralish road that is at dispute.
    HH is giving you another reason, besides the reasons already noted, to get out of a bike lane. If you feel safer out of the bike lane in those other instances, why is it suddenly so dangerous to do so when there is a large gap in traffic on a rural road?

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP
    Stridency, repetitiveness, and condescension.

    Lack of evidence, and assumptions about driver behavior that are inconsistent with personal experience don't help either.

    Finally, the fact that noted cycling authorities are weighing in and challenging the position...well, that pretty much seals the deal (for me, anyway...YMMV).
    What do any of the above qualities of his writing have to do with you not understanding? I can understand why those qualities might make you want to do your best to disagree, but if you want to disagree with what someone says, you really should understand what they are saying first. You have demonstrated over and over again that you do not understand what he's talking about. If you do understand and just feel like being a pain and not taking the discussion seriously, just say so.

    He's presented evidence that you choose to ignore. I don't believe you have ever stated exactly which driver behaviors he talks about that are inconsistent with your personal experience.

    Why is Robert's word so unchallengeable? What evidence has Robert presented that has you so convinced?
    Last edited by joejack951; 03-23-07 at 09:51 AM.

  6. #206
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    If you look at the bike lane death's thread, HH has plenty to base his claim on which you all seem to want to ignore.
    This is an odd remark to put in a thread that was supposed to gather information proving that from-behind impacts were almost a non-existant accident type, and then... dicarded by the OP when it demonstrated something else.

    That bike-lane thread had years of media reports from all over your country.

    In this thread I posted two fatal accidents involving three cyclists from my metro area from last August alone. I'm pretty sure no one read them.

  7. #207
    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 ghettocruiser
    In this thread I posted two fatal accidents involving three cyclists from my metro area from last August alone. I'm pretty sure no one read them.
    The first report does not give any details about time of day, cyclists' equipment (if occurring at night) or lane position, or any details of how the collision occurred (was the motorist passing the cyclists and clipped them?).

    I'm not even sure what the second report is about. There's mention of a motorist crossing a centerline but that's about it. Perhaps you provided the wrong link?

  8. #208
    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 joejack951
    So let me try to understand you here. There's two scenarios that I can think of that would cause to respond the way you do.

    #1. You really don't understand what HH is writing, you post as if you do, he corrects you, you continue to post demonstrating that you don't understand, and HH points out that you don't understand which you deem condescending.

    #2. You really do understand what HH is saying but you choose to intentionally misinterpret his words in order to try and discredit what he's saying. He corrects you, you continue to mischaracterize what's he saying, and HH points out that you don't understand which you deem condescending.

    Which one is it? In either case, how is HH not justified in claiming that you don't understand?

    Aside from Robert's anecdotal claim about his girlfriend being struck from behind, how is Robert's claim any less baseless than HH's? If you look at the bike lane death's thread, HH has plenty to base his claim on which you all seem to want to ignore.

    I'll be the first to admit that being a cyclist makes me a more attentive driver. I've never been someone to yap away on a cellphone while driving (I have fielded a few calls here and there though) but I would never consider texting or downloading ringtones or just plain taking me eyes off the road for long enough to drift completely out of my lane. But this stuff happens. There are millions of drivers out there on the roads who are not us. Those same drivers are the ones who are surprised that when they didn't yield right of way at a stop sign, or ran a red light, or drove drunk, or turned right in front of cyclist that they caused a collision.

    FWIW, I've been driving down the road with my fiancee sitting next to me, both of us watching the road and pointed out someone on the shoulder that we just passed who she completely missed. Granted she's not driving but she's looking at the same road I'm looking at. How do you explain all of the non-impaired drivers in the bike lane deaths thread who drifted into cyclists?

    Well why would it be characterized as happening in the shoulder if the cyclist drifted into the traffic lane? What motorist would tell the police that they drifted into the shoulder/bike lane (which is how many of these deaths are reported as happening) when really it was the cyclist who drifted? I'm not saying your case never happens as I'm sure it does. It's one good reason to be entirely sure of what's going on around you before attending to a distraction, even if you are in a bike lane/shoulder (you know, those ultra-safe spots that cyclists love to ride).

    HH is giving you another reason, besides the reasons already noted, to get out of a bike lane. If you feel safer out of the bike lane in those other instances, why is it suddenly so dangerous to do so when there is a large gap in traffic on a rural road?

    What do any of the above qualities of his writing have to do with you not understanding? I can understand why those qualities might make you want to do your best to disagree, but if you want to disagree with what someone says, you really should understand what they are saying first. You have demonstrated over and over again that you do not understand what he's talking about. If you do understand and just feel like being a pain and not taking the discussion seriously, just say so.

    He's presented evidence that you choose to ignore. I don't believe you have ever stated exactly which driver behaviors he talks about that are inconsistent with your personal experience.

    Why is Robert's word so unchallengeable? What evidence has Robert presented that has you so convinced?
    As I've said on a number of occasions, I do feel like I understand your and HH's position (God knows you've both used enough bandwidth trying to make your points).

    But, based on:

    a) my experience as both a cyclist and a driver

    b) the lack of empirical evidence for your position

    c) the lack of support for your position by respected cycling authorities


    I find your claims of enhanced safety to be quite unconvincing.


    Edit: if it really is a failure of you and HH to communicate your position clearly, perhaps you two could get together and put together an instructional video. Posting a video illustrating your concepts might help to convince others of the validity of your techniques, and would be much easier to digest than your "Wall of Words" posting style. On the other hand, it might convince some folks that you're crazy or ill-informed...but, at least there would be less uncertainty about how your position works out on the road.
    Last edited by SSP; 03-23-07 at 12:58 PM.
    CycliStats.com - Software for Cyclists
    WeightWare.com - Weight Management Software

  9. #209
    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 joejack951
    Why is Robert's word so unchallengeable? What evidence has Robert presented that has you so convinced?
    Maybe beacuse what Robert writes jibes, for the most part, with our actual experience? When someone tells you the sky is pink with red polka dots and someone else tells you that it's pretty much blue, and you ain't blind or color blind, who do you believe?
    "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

  10. #210
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    ... how is Robert's claim any less baseless than HH's?
    What claim?

  11. #211
    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 SSP
    As I've said on a number of occasions, I do feel like I understand your and HH's position (God knows you've both used enough bandwidth trying to make your points).

    But, based on:

    a) my experience as both a cyclist and a driver

    b) the lack of empirical evidence for your position

    c) the lack of support for your position by respected cycling authorities


    I find your claims of enhanced safety to be quite unconvincing.


    Edit: if it really is a failure of you and HH to communicate your position clearly, perhaps you two could get together and put together an instructional video. Posting a video illustrating your concepts might help to convince others of the validity of your techniques, and would be much easier to digest than your "Wall of Words" posting style. On the other hand, it might convince some folks that you're crazy or ill-informed...but, at least there would be less uncertainty about how your position works out on the road.
    Ok, that's fine then if you simply don't find the argument compelling. What you've written about the argument hasn't demonstrated a good grasp on what's actually being advocated though. Statements like this:

    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.
    Can you explain what you really meant by this? To me, it does not demonstrate an understanding of the technique HH has been talking about.

    Perhaps a video would work better, and I'd gladly work on one with him if we weren't seperated by 3000 miles worth of US land.

  12. #212
    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
    What claim?
    Your claim that HH is full of it and has provided no evidence to support his wacky theory.

  13. #213
    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 chipcom
    Maybe beacuse what Robert writes jibes, for the most part, with our actual experience?
    What specifically has HH written that doesn't jibe with your actual experience?

  14. #214
    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 joejack951
    What specifically has HH written that doesn't jibe with your actual experience?
    Good example of twisting something into a loaded question - I explain why what Robert writes is credible and you respond wanting me to talk about HH? Sorry JJ, I quit playing these stupid games...if you cannot see from literally hundreds my posts, some right in this thread, where I disagree with HH, I am not going to rehash them for 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

  15. #215
    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 chipcom
    Good example of twisting something into a loaded question - I explain why what Robert writes is credible and you respond wanting me to talk about HH? Sorry JJ, I quit playing these stupid games...if you cannot see from literally hundreds my posts, some right in this thread, where I disagree with HH, I am not going to rehash them for you.
    It was far from a loaded question. Your recent post about what Robert writes was very vague. Are you referring to stuff in his book or what he's said in this thread? What specifically? Maybe I should have reread more of the thread looking for your other examples though. I'll go search some more and report back

    [edit] Here's what I found about Chip's thoughts on HH's theory.

    1. Chip thinks that because he has a good field of vision while driving and sees cyclists on the shoulder that all other drivers must be doing the same thing. Any driver who claims they didn't see a cyclist on the shoulder must be lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    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'.
    2. Chip assumes that he is invisible and only stops assuming this once a driver has given him physical clues (a reaction in their driving) before he assumes that the driver has seen him. Somehow Chip thinks this is substantially different from HH's "trust but verify."Based on #1 though, when Chip rides in a bike lane he assumes that every driver has seen him.

    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    ...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.
    3. Chip thinks that even though someone might not recall seeing something, even if it's only seconds after it happened, that they really did see it anyway. Based on #2, Chip must think that a driver could see him and adjust their position presumably based on instinct alone (after all, they won't even remember doing this) yet when HH talks about doing the same thing yet being able to recall it (honing instincts thread plus a mention in this thread re: "autopilot") he calls BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    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.

    Did I miss anything? [edit]
    Last edited by joejack951; 03-23-07 at 02:00 PM.

  16. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    Your claim that HH is full of it and has provided no evidence to support his wacky theory.
    My claim was that HH's claim (that cyclists are MORE LIKELY to be drifted into than hit square) is not supported by any substantive evidence.

    Of course, any incident that clearly involves 'inadvertent drift' could be presented as 'evidence' for HH's theory. But it is not substantive evidence for his particular theory any more than every pass that occurs safely without drift is evidence to the contrary. The anecdotal evidence HH provides shows us that 'inadvertent drift' is something that happens, occasionally, at some very small but unknown rate; the anecdotal evidence provided by many in this thread including me shows that getting hit while riding the lane is also something that happens, occasionally, at some very small but unknown rate.

    To make HH's much more specific and advanced claim -- that one situation is more dangerous than the other -- one would have to have a good handle on how many total encounters/passes occur in each situation, in order to come up with a rate (collisions per pass, or something) that could be comparable. Just counting the total incidents of each type (and I contend that we could not even do that if we tried, due to terminal uncertainties in reporting of incidents) would not produce a valid comparison either way. Now I hope you understand why my claim was less baseless than HH's.

    Robert

  17. #217
    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 RobertHurst
    Now I hope you understand why my claim was less baseless than HH's.
    Robert, dude, that line is a keeper!
    "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. #218
    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 RobertHurst
    My claim was that HH's claim (that cyclists are MORE LIKELY to be drifted into than hit square) is not supported by any substantive evidence.
    Robert
    Of course it is, from "The Department of I Pulled It Out of My Ass".
    That's why I ask for peer reviewed journals and statistics when someone starts making claims of "more common" and "most likely" and "happens to so and so more often" instead of just accepting information from a website called weareexperts.com. Hell, I can register woman-pleasurer-expert.com, doesn't nevessarily mean I am an expert though... but I am pretty darned good.
    I found it on the internet, it must be true!!!
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  19. #219
    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
    My claim was that HH's claim (that cyclists are MORE LIKELY to be drifted into than hit square) is not supported by any substantive evidence.
    You took my "claim" too literally, or I did not make it sufficiently clear that I was expessing a belief based on limited evidence that is entirely empirical.

    In any case, my position is I don't KNOW which position is more safe. I certainly don't know of any studies that tell me one way or the other. I do know that I sure SEEM to be treated as if I'm noticed when I ride in the lane and then move into the shoulder/bike lane to let motorists pass, as opposed to when I just ride in the shoulder/bike lane.

    But in terms of the overtaking collisions that I read and hear about, despite the thousands of cyclists who ride on thousands of miles of roads where it is impossible to not be riding in motorists' paths, drifting into an unnoticed cyclist in a shoulder or bike lane sure SEEMS to happen much more often than a motorist not seeing a cyclist up ahead in broad daylight (and not blinded by the sun) and hitting him square from behind.

    In other words, if I exclude the right hook types and clipping types (motorist saw the edge-hugging cyclist, but misjudged the passing distance), almost all of the overtaking crashes I hear about involve drifting into an unnoticed cyclist in a bike lane or shoulder. I'm not claiming that's scientific evidence. That's just what I have noticed. The scarcity of specific examples of daytime square crashes into unnoticed cyclists in the motorist's path in this thread only supports my belief.

  20. #220
    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
    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?
    I can see the difference. Why can't you understand that it doesn't matter to how you ride whether you want to be seen or not, if you are assuming you are not seen?

    By the way, if you're assuming you're not seen, why would you want to be seen anyway? How would being seen change anything for you?

    Say someone is holding your loved ones hostage and says they will let them go if you ride across town at night Ninja style. God himself confirms to you that the kidnapper speaks the truth.

    In other words, you don't WANT to not be seen, it just is. You're in black, no lights, and it's dark. And you MUST ride all the way across town.

    Now, would you agree that in that situation you would have to assume you are not seen, and ride accordingly?
    Would you ride in that situation be any different from how you would ride during the day in high vis clothing (assume same levels of traffic).

    For example, as you roll up to a red light, if you are truly assuming you are not seen, then you should arguably hop up on the sidewalk and wait there. After all, you're assuming the next car to come to the light will roll right over you, no? Why not?

  21. #221
    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
    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
    When something is "safe", that means the RISK of harm, or the LIKELIHOOD of harm, is relatively low.

    Claiming riding on a shoulder or bike lane is "just as safe" as riding on the road means the same as the likelihood of harm is about the same regardless of where you're riding.

  22. #222
    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
    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
    You've got it backwards. I didn't make this stuff up. Inspired by your book, especially the responsibility stuff, as much as anything else (including John Franklin's Cyclecraft - have you read it?), a couple of years ago I started looking at reports of bike-car collisions in terms of what the cyclist could have done to avoid it.

    The intersection stuff was all straightforward.

    Where I was stumped at first was on the between-intersection stuff. There was a rash of cyclists killed in Sonoma County where some of my family lives, for example. In one incident two cyclists had stopped for a rest at the side of the road when they were drifted into (she was killed, he seriously injured). Then another rural fatality near San Diego. there were other reports. The evidence kept rolling in, and the hypothesis sprung from it.

    At some point I started writing about it here. I get a bunch of ***** for it, but not much substance causing me to believe it's not true.

    As to your other points, they are well made. Yes, it would be better, but very difficult, to get data that could tell us more definitively.

    To address this specifically:

    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.
    There are two cases to consider.

    (a) A road with NO shoulder, BL or WOL, where all cyclists, regardless of technique, have no choice but to ride in motorists' paths. The square from-behind hit into the unnoticed cyclist are extremely rare on such roads, which is the point of this thread.

    (b) A road with a shoulder, BL or WOL and light traffic. On such a road whether the cyclist was using Franklin's primary/secondary technique or not, by the time the motorist was close enough to hit him, the cyclist would be in the margin of the road. So if the motorist doesn't notice the cyclist, either way, the cyclist is in the margin. The only difference is that if the cyclist was using the Franklin technique, by the time he's in the margin he's probably a noticed cyclist because he was in the motorist's path a few moments earlier.

  23. #223
    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)
    HH, I'm not going to explain for the upteenth time. Forgive me, I don't know how to say it any plainer and I think everyone else pretty much gets it. Perhaps the reason you feel so misunderstood by so many people and tend to blame their reading comprehension, isn't their problem at all, but rather yours. Perhaps 'What we have here is a failure to communicate.'

    "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

  24. #224
    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)
    Why can't we all have buttons so once a topic belongs in the VC forum we can just vote to have it moved, or just move the dang thing ourselves?
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  25. #225
    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 chipcom
    HH, I'm not going to explain for the upteenth time. Forgive me, I don't know how to say it any plainer and I think everyone else pretty much gets it. Perhaps the reason you feel so misunderstood by so many people and tend to blame their reading comprehension, isn't their problem at all, but rather yours. Perhaps 'What we have here is a failure to communicate.'
    Chip, I tried, in my post above, to understand what you are trying to communicate in this thread. To his credit, Robert, as usual, has been the only person to offer an honest challenge to HH's theory. And maybe Robert is right. Without conclusive evidence it's tough to say but based on what small amount of evidence does exist, it's tough to find fault with HH's theory. What you have posted are a bunch of contradictory statements that amount to nothing. Until you offer an honest challenge, the only failure to communicate is yours.

    Perhaps there's "some men you just can't reach."

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •