spare_wheel

How about driver?

LucF

FWIW, looks like the conclusions in this Canadian report on cycling fatalities contradict the OP's report:

I-Like-To-Bike

I and others address what we choose to address, not what you decide should be discussed. In this case, I chose to discuss/respond to a previous poster about the various definitions of overtaking in relation to bicycling accidents. Too darn bad that you expect me to respond to your telepathic requests for opinions on subjects of interest to you.

I-Like-To-Bike

There were a few posters on A&S in the past who empasized that they considered themselves and others who rode like them as bicycle drivers, because they operated their bicycles IAW motor vehicle rules and requirements.
One poster was killed in a traffic accident, cause was never made clear as best as I could tell. Another otherwise well spoken poster no longer posts here, others may be in the woodwork somewhere.

phoebeisis

No doubt others have suggested that LC VC Taking the lane
Has absolutely ZERO protective effect against "distracted drivers"

Cyclist need protected routes more than ever. Of the 628 cycling-related fatalities studied, most were caused by careless or inattentive drivers—something dedicated cycling lanes would help alleviate.

The above cut from the article makes it clear-cyclists are at risk from distracted(TEXTING) drivers.

TAKING THE LANE- won't protect you from distracted drivers.
It will increase your risk because cars -guided and not so guided-spend the most time cutting out a swath more or less in the middle of the lane.

They spend MUCH less time far RIGHT.
LCing might earn you fewer "close shaves" from alert but jerky drivers
But close shaves don't hurt you.
Probability favors FRAP when you factor in distracted drivers.
LCing assumes drivers are alert attentive - most are
BUT the ones that HIT YOU- AREN'T!
This article should put paid to LANE CONTROLLING-
It won't of course because LCers will claim--that since the started LCing "They have fewer close shaves"
They probably are being truthful-but they are missing the point.
LCers have ZERO evidence that it makes them safer.
This study certainly indicates that plopped in the middle of the lane-isn't the lowest risk positioning.

MMACH 5

Can you site a source for the bolded claim?

Leisesturm

I am not advocating this as policy, I'm just putting out there what has worked for me. As it happens, this week my wife is writing an op ed for our tandem club newsletter on what she has "seen", heard and learned over the last eight years of riding with me on our two tandems. She is blind and her perspective is desired by the rest of the club (50 teams) because none of them could ever consider riding a bicycle on the road at any other time than early Saturday or Sunday morning and then only in a group and only with the constant vigilance of the point teams and rear guard teams calling "car back!" or "car up!" whenever danger looms.

When my now wife and I met I had been bike commuting from Brooklyn, NY to NY, NY five days a week. 14 miles of very urban cycling on a constant basis. I've never hit or been hit by a car neither before riding as the captain of a tandem team or solo as a commuter. If a texting driver were to blow a stop sign or fail to yield they might nail an entitled VC'er but not me because I ride like a bicycle, NOT a motorcycle. It works for me. We moved to Portland two years after meeting, and for all but two months of the last six years in Oregon have been spent in the Hillsboro suburb of Portland. Now we are in what is called close-in South-East, and on a daily basis as I captain DW to her office 2 miles away and ride back light, I see countless thousands of other cyclists riding much like I do: in the door zone, to the right of the traffic stream, but ready to control the vehicle lane when and if necessary for short periods.

Some of you need a slap up the side of the head and round-trip airfare to Portland, OR so you can see first-hand the benefits of a non-confrontational approach to vehicular cycling. FWIW.

H

buzzman

Other than the fact that it was a statement included in the page linked in the OP...

meanwhile

That a "study" confirms your prejudices is never a good reason for believing it is correct.

meanwhile

Yes: and I've never been in an aircrash or adducted by aliens - aren't we both remarkable???

So your theory is a texting driver will drive perfectly except for not seeing cyclists? He won't ever veer to the edges of the road? Ok...

spare_wheel

We always *notice* it when ideologues die via their ideologies but it's not really an informative event.

I think most cagers think of themselves as "drivers" and when they are not driving as passengers. Because operating a motorized couch is the default mode in USAnia, the label "driver" does not contain the negative "self-identity" connotations of "cyclist". As cycling inevitably becomes more common, I expect "cyclist" will also lose some of the negative baggage (subcultural and social-political) associated with the term.

spare_wheel

I don't know when and where you ride but I almost never see people riding in the door zone on Belmont, Hawthorne, of Madison. I also don't think riding in the door zone is a sign of progress from a "VC" or "segregation" perspectiv.

MMACH 5

A dubious claim made in the OP. I haven't found anything in the LAB report that backs up the claim "Of the 628 cycling-related fatalities studied, most were caused by careless or inattentive drivers..."

wphamilton

Why do you assume prejudice? I didn't cite any sources, but what I wrote there came primarily from FARS data, and a few other objective sources. I'm surprised that anyone would consider it suspect.

There were several posters in this thread who appear to dispute that from the rear collisions result in the most fatalities. Perhaps you are another, since you refer to that statement as "prejudice" and imply confirmation bias. Do you have any data at all that disputes it?

spare_wheel

And I chose to highlight the irony of criticizing a critique without in any way addressing the flaws in the original study.

spare_wheel

Is it really hard to accept the possibility that roads with high speeds and fewer intersections have more overtaking hits or that roads with slower speed and/or more intersecation have fewer overtaking hits?

IMO, this is only a "debate" for VCers and "copenhamsterdamistas". For non-zealots it's a bit of a "duh".

wphamilton

It should be considered established fact, rather than merely possibilities.

We can't really expect bike lanes on long rural roads, and we also can't really be safe with vehicular cycling if sight lines are shorter than stopping distance. If that's truly what the controversy is about, then it's difficult to see how there could be a resolution when both sides advocate the impossible.

MMACH 5

I don't dispute that a collision from the rear is worse than from the side. I dispute it being interpreted that same-way collisions are our biggest concern.

Same way collisions are the rarest type of bicycle/auto collision. They are deadly but rare.

Null66 made a comparison with airplane and automobile crashes. Airplane crashes are far more deadly, but are so rare that airline travel is safer than auto travel.

wphamilton

Rare enough that I'm not concerned at all about them, other than riding with a mirror to improve my odds.

The tunnel vision on fatalities (let alone type of fatality) is already a red herring. There are 50,000 injuries and 700 fatalities in round numbers. Addressing the overtaking portion of fatalities (180 to 280 depending on who you believe) to the exclusion of the 50,000 injuries doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I-Like-To-Bike

It is unlikely that many drivers/motorist consider themselves "cagers," or that they operate a "motorized couch", or that they live in "USAnia." Nor that they would likely be impressed with such colorful descriptions.

But there are always a few jokers in the deck reducing whatever credibility they might have by repeatedly using such smarmy/belittling references.

spare_wheel

I was being very generous.

I've always believed that bike advocates would get more traction if there was support for a range of approaches/options instead of the *one ideal solution*.

phoebeisis

MMACH5
No.
I glanced at the "article" again. It isn't an article-just a few paragraphs-pie chart -couple of tables.
It wasn't clear HOW/WHERE the writer got the numbers-628 deaths.
And considering their own "facts" cut below

In the 628 fatalities, police reportedly cited motorists 285 times. But authorities took legal action in only 135 of the cases resulting in just 77 sentences.

How 285/628(45%) or 135/628(21%) becomes MOST ???
It doesn't make any sense to call 45% or 21% "most"

Now the OP point- 40% rear enders- yeah rear end collision-certainly indicates inattention.
And that was what I was "using" to cheap shot Lane Controlling.
I can never resist a cheap shot at LCing.

Now I would buy that many many-majority maybe-of bike car deaths are caused by inattention-but those numbers don't suggest the cops or juries bought it
AND safe bet the drivers sure as hell didn't say " I was TEXTING"

Now I did like the bike lanes I rode on in Flagstaff AZ-but the drivers there were sooooo polite it might not matter.
I rarely ride our NOLA bike lanes-don't live in the city

kickstart

LOL, very well put.

achoo

Wow. Talk about elitism and needing "external validation".

I guess when you find yourself in a logical fallacy hole, you don't stop digging. Oh no, not that. You reach for the pneumatic drills, drill some holes, fill the holes with dynamite, and try to blast your way to China.

meanwhile

I didn't: you said that you were prejudiced - you had expectations and the claimed result matched them, hence "no surprise." Prejudice means pre-judging - that's where the word comes from. Intelligent people don't judge studies this way but on their methodology - which in this case is poor.