Oregon Teacher Hit and Killed

[Brian Ratliff]

What if his awareness, and lack thereof, was typical, and while all motorists momentarily drift into bike lanes from time to time, without really knowing whether a cyclist is present or not, he just happened to do it when someone was in the bike lane...

Is there any justice for punishing him at all? What good would that do when all other motorists continue to do the same thing, because it's only human?

If all that's true, shouldn't we go after the root cause instead?

Yea, but the root cause is not lane positioning of the cyclist, but driver awareness. Punishing him is addressing the root cause. If drivers are punished with a manslaughter sentence when they are neglegent while driving a vehicle, it follows that drivers will be more careful. Neglegence is a punishable offense.

[Helmet Head]

Not in this case. This is my turf. The traffic is heavy even at 6:30 in the morning.
I believe there were no witnesses, indicating traffic was not heavy. Plus, the whole drifting thing rarely happens when a motorist is in traffic. It's almost always when he believes he's on an empty road.

[Brian Ratliff]

But, Brian, if you're using a mirror and riding in the center of the lane, you can use your lane position to get the motorist approaching from behind to be aware of your presence, and, then, using your mirror, when he's 2-3 seconds behind you, move aside into the bike lane.

Now you're in exactly the same position, in the bike lane, by the time the motorist reaches you as was Eric Kautzky, accept that you have at that point taken actions that he hadn't to get on the motorist's "awareness radar."

Yes, but on this road, per your instructions, you would not ride in the center of the lane. You are operating from ignorance again.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, you're assuming that there were cars in front of the motorist who hit Kautzky. I haven't read anything to indicate that was the case.

[genec]

...blatant driving in bike lanes, which, frankly, I've never seen.

You need to get out more. I see it quite often... in particular at Genesee west at 5 north, and at El Camino Real north several blocks before the east bound 56. I have even confronted motorists about it... of course their reaction is less then cordial.

BTW at Genesee west at 5 north... a motor cop was posted there for a few days moving the vehicles out of the BL... it was a beautiful sight. Puttin' the motorists back into their lanes. Yeah!

[Brian Ratliff]

I believe there were no witnesses, indicating traffic was not heavy. Plus, the whole drifting thing rarely happens when a motorist is in traffic. It's almost always when he believes he's on an empty road.

No, a witness is only a witness if they stop. Traffic is not backed up at that hour, if that's what you mean. By 7:00, the backup starts, and by 7:30, it is backed up along the whole stretch. This area is heavy industrial, not commercial or professional, so there are many people on the road at 6:30.

For an 18 year old to zone out or fall asleep momentarily is not an uncommon thing, regardless of traffic conditions.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, you're assuming that there were cars in front of the motorist who hit Kautzky. I haven't read anything to indicate that was the case.

Yes, I am assuming, but since I know and ride frequently on this road, it is a good assumption.

[Helmet Head]

Fine...

*IF* there were cars in front of the motorist who hit Kautzky, then the approach I have been advocating here has no application.

*IF* there were no cars in front of the motorist who hit Kautzky, the motorist was unaware of the presence of Kautzky in the bike lane, and what he did was inadverdently drift from the main lane into the bike lane (as opposed to just driving in the bike lane for some significant amount of time without noticing Kautzky up ahead in his path), then the approach I have been advocating here might have helped, by riding in the center of the lane, in the motorist's path, and getting his attention, and then moving aside into the bike lane, before he reached the cyclist.

Can we agree on that?

[noisebeam]

But, Brian, if you're using a mirror and riding in the center of the lane, you can use your lane position to get the motorist approaching from behind to be aware of your presence, and, then, using your mirror, when he's 2-3 seconds behind you, move aside into the bike lane.

Now you're in exactly the same position, in the bike lane, by the time the motorist reaches you as was Eric Kautzky, accept that you have at that point taken actions that he hadn't to get on the motorist's "awareness radar."
HH, Please note that per Brian's experience this is a heavily traveled road at 6:30am. That means a vehicle is passing probably every 2-5s. Where should one ride then? Once one has moved right to let a car pass, one can not move back left (I too have driven on this road at 9am, 3pm) and it is indeed busy and like roads where I live not condusive to riding in the center of the lane with such dense and high speed traffic.

Al

[genec]

But, Brian, if you're using a mirror and riding in the center of the lane, you can use your lane position to get the motorist approaching from behind to be aware of your presence, and, then, using your mirror, when he's 2-3 seconds behind you, move aside into the bike lane.

Now you're in exactly the same position, in the bike lane, by the time the motorist reaches you as was Eric Kautzky, accept that you have at that point taken actions that he hadn't to get on the motorist's "awareness radar."

I would love to see you use that technique at noon on Miramar road... when the traffic is heavy and fast... not at rush hour when the traffic is heavy and bumper to bumper. Or try it about 10:00 AM when all the large trucks are heading east to hiway 15. I'll stay on the sidewalk and videotape you moving in and out of the 50MPH+ traffic... remember to avoid using the bikelane.

I know one can signal and and work to make a left turn on that road, but to see you do your lane centering technique on a real fast road, with heavy traffic... now that would be a sight to see.

Think of the training video that we could make...

[Helmet Head]

Gene... Genesee west at 5 north? You mean motorists merging into the bike lane to get onto the onramp to 5 north? As long as they are within 200 feet of the entrance to the onramp, that is legal. Are they doing it earlier than that? 200 feet is about 12 car lengths...

[Helmet Head]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing the scenario that Brian is suggesting... that there were cars in front of and behind the motorist who hit Kautzky, that they were all driving outside of the bike lane, and he was straddling the stripe, driving along in the bike lane, and just mowed him down, and no one stopped.

[genec]

Gene... Genesee west at 5 north? You mean motorists merging into the bike lane to get onto the onramp to 5 north? As long as they are within 200 feet of the entrance to the onramp, that is legal. Are they doing it earlier than that? 200 feet is about 12 car lengths...

Yup they were doing it from just past the light at Campus Point and Genesee. Happens every Feb when the Buick Invitational screws up the traffic at and around Torrey Pines.

It was illegal enough to warrant a traffic officer standing there to enforce the lanes. I thought it was classic... and thanked the officer.

Happens every day on El Camino Real... from just before the dirt "entrance" to the 56 bike bike path all the way down to 56.

I know autos are allowed and encouraged to merge, but what happens is that a few autos do the right thing, and then all the lemmings carry it too far.

[Brian Ratliff]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing the scenario that Brian is suggesting... that there were cars in front of and behind the motorist who hit Kautzky, that they were all driving outside of the bike lane, and he was straddling the stripe, driving along in the bike lane, and just mowed him down, and no one stopped.

Whatever. You believe what you want to believe, but if you are operating out of ignorance, admit it and make your point using an idealized situation. At 50mph, cars can be spaced out quite a bit and still be passing a cyclist every few seconds (if cars are passing every 5 seconds, for instance, they can be spaced more than 200 feet apart, assuming the cyclist is going 20mph, which is also a good assumption on this road).

If it is dark (which at 6:30 it is), it is improbable that anybody really saw the accident anyway. The point is that cars don't have to be bumper to bumper to keep a cyclist out of the center of the road.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH, Please note that per Brian's experience this is a heavily traveled road at 6:30am. That means a vehicle is passing probably every 2-5s. Where should one ride then? Once one has moved right to let a car pass, one can not move back left (I too have driven on this road at 9am, 3pm) and it is indeed busy and like roads where I live not condusive to riding in the center of the lane with such dense and high speed traffic.

Al

You lived in Oregon for a time, or just here on business?

[noisebeam]

You lived in Oregon for a time, or just here on business?
On business fairly frequently. Spent 3mo up there about 5yrs ago too.
Al

[Keith99]

I've been paying attention to cars in bike lanes for several months now. Mainly when I am a driver. I do not recall a single case of a car drifting into a bike lane farther than the tire on the line. Now using the bike lane to pass or for far too long going into a right turn is a different matter.

So if this kid was at speed and far enough into the bike lane to hit with the front bumper of the car he was far enough over to be a rather extreme case as far as my experience goes. Extreme enough that he may well have missed seeing anything. (Yes there are drivers who seem to be blind. I was on a tour bus parked at the side of the road on a nearly empty street that got rear ended by a car that did not see it).

[Brian Ratliff]

On business fairly frequently. Spent 3mo up there about 5yrs ago too.
Al

Cool. If you are looking for a riding partner next time you are here...

[Brian Ratliff]

I've been paying attention to cars in bike lanes for several months now. Mainly when I am a driver. I do not recall a single case of a car drifting into a bike lane farther than the tire on the line. Now using the bike lane to pass or for far too long going into a right turn is a different matter.

So if this kid was at speed and far enough into the bike lane to hit with the front bumper of the car he was far enough over to be a rather extreme case as far as my experience goes. Extreme enough that he may well have missed seeing anything. (Yes there are drivers who seem to be blind. I was on a tour bus parked at the side of the road on a nearly empty street that got rear ended by a car that did not see it).

Like I said earlier, he probably fell asleep or was otherwise zoned out. Your observations match mine. I've never seen a car drift so far over into the bike lane, on this road or any other.

[noisebeam]

It would be good data after all legally binding statements are made and sentencing complete if the driver could admit exactly what happened from his perspective - unfortunately I don't think the system works this way, so we are left with speculation. Changing CD, talking on phone, driving to fast for condition, fell asleep, etc.

Al

[genec]

It would be good data after all legally binding statements are made and sentencing complete if the driver could admit exactly what happened from his perspective - unfortunately I don't think the system works this way, so we are left with speculation. Changing CD, talking on phone, driving to fast for condition, fell asleep, etc.

Al

I agree... a driver, here in San Diego that hit and killed a Marine Captain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20050927/lo_kgtv/2962807;_ylt=AhLn.VX8d6aFaBoT2c_fDTomyEQC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) , just admitted guilt, but I doubt we will ever get the full story. Too bad too as that is the kind of stuff that can help us cyclists figure out better ways to stay out of harms way.

[Helmet Head]

OK, Brian. Just because I have a hard time believing it, does not mean I'm completely closed to the possibility that that's how it happened. I did not realize that this was a 50 mph road. Also, I do use my technique, getting out of the bike lane, when traffic is fairly busy.

There are many times when I move aside into the bike lane to let a car pass, see in my mirror that another one is coming, but it is still some significant number of seconds back, do my shoulder check to verify it is clear, move left into the center of the lane, wait until I get the feedback that the driver of the approaching vehicle is aware of me (he slows, moves laterally, waves, or honks), then I move back into the bike lane, assured that the next car to pass me is driven by someone who is aware of my presence. It might seem like a hassle, but once it becomes habit, like with any other habit, it's relatively painless and becomes perfectly natural.

Also, in terms of how far the driver had to drive into the BL to hit the cyclist, because of how BLs tend to collect debris, especially on busy high speed roads, cyclists often ride on or near the stripe, where the pavement is cleaner, with their handlebars and parts of their body hanging into the vehicle lane. So the driver did not necessarily have to drift far into the bike lane, indeed maybe did not have to drift into it at all, in order to hit the cyclist.

[Helmet Head]

One more technique that I use when riding on a bike laned street... When there is continuous or near continuous traffic that prevents me from using my technique of moving out into the main traffic lane to get motorists' attention, I use my mirror to monitor approaching vehicles, and issue the slow/stop arm signal when they are not leaving a safe distance. Doing so is surprisingly effective in getting motorists to notice me in the bike lane and move a safe distance to the left when they pass me.

[Brian Ratliff]

All good, Serge. See, you don't have to assume much about the situation to make the basic point you are trying to get across. Extend your experience to the forum, but you don't have to lecture, or endlessly try to use ill-described situations to make your point. Yes, a real situation can be the basis for making a point (usually called a case study), but the situation cannot used if the facts are not known. You didn't even know that this was a high speed highway before making your comments. You didn't know the traffic density. Then, when called on it, you try to defend the indefensible.

Next time, when attempting a case study, make it clear what is assumption and what is fact. If you have to assume more than you know, it is not a case study. And stay away from criticizing the dead victim directly about his/her technique. It's just in bad taste so soon after the fact, expecially when your assumptions turn out to be wrong.

This situation hits home for me because it is on my turf where this happened. I probably ride in his tire tracks at times. His accident could be my accident. So, go ahead, describe your techniques and what you would do in his place, but stay away from the attempted case studies based on flawed, unstated assumptions. Keep it respectful.

[Helmet Head]

Next time, when attempting a case study, make it clear what is assumption and what is fact. If you have to assume more than you know, it is not a case study. And stay away from criticizing the dead victim directly about his/her technique. It's just in bad taste so soon after the fact, expecially when your assumptions turn out to be wrong.

This situation hits home for me because it is on my turf where this happened. I probably ride in his tire tracks at times. His accident could be my accident. So, go ahead, describe your techniques and what you would do in his place, but stay away from the attempted case studies based on flawed, unstated assumptions. Keep it respectful.
All sage advice, Brian, except you might want to go back and reread my first post on this thread.

First of all, it is impractical if not impossible to state all assumptions one is making. The key is to state the significant ones, but even then that's not always easy to do.

In this case I was clear from the start that I was assuming a quiet street, given the time (6:30 am), and that my advice/techniques to move out into the center of the lane were based on that assumption.

The reason I state assumptions like that is precisely in case they're wrong.

As to my unstated assumption that traffic on this road traveled at less than 50 mph, and my subsequent comment stating that I had not realized it was that fast a road, that assumption was not significant. That is, my advice/techniques applied the same, as the movements are based on how far away the approaching-from-behind motorist is in terms of time.

And advising me to "stay away from criticizing the dead victim" is particularly bothersome, since I made it clear as many times as reasonably possible that I wasn't doing that. If you choose to interpret my words that way anyway, that's your problem, not mine.

[noisebeam]

The reason I state assumptions like that is precisely in case they're wrong.

In my recent discussions with you it appears you state assumption, not to validate them, but because any time a cyclist is involved in the incident you assume (even when careful reading could tell you otherwise) that it is due to something the cyclist did wrong, with blinders on that there are drivers out there who can not be 'controlled' by cyclist behavior alone. And in the two cases I brought up recenlty when you finally, after arguing that cyclists (me in this case) could do better, do get the facts straight you seem drop interest as to apparently distance yourself from the 'drivers could do better' situation and how that can be addressed.

Why not first approach a situation neutrally, instead of with any bias?

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

First of all, it is impractical if not impossible to state all assumptions one is making. The key is to state the significant ones, but even then that's not always easy to do.

This is something that has to be learned, and as you are fond of saying, once you learn and practice it, it becomes second nature. When approaching a problem or starting an analysis, get into the habit of writing out the assumptions you are using. For instance, in this case study, start by stating up front:

1) assuming light traffic.
2) assuming traffic is slow.
3) etc...

It sounds pedantic, but since you are trying to analyize a real situation, stating your assumptions explicitly helps people understand your analysis, and helps you understand where your analysis may be wrong.

You imply some of your assumptions, such as the quiet street, but you put in into a context where it did not belong (assuming it was quiet because it was 6:30am). Then you got caught up in arguing the basis for your assumption instead of simply acknowledging that your assumption was wrong and resuming your basic analysis with a new assumption.

And advising me to "stay away from criticizing the dead victim" is particularly bothersome, since I made it clear as many times as reasonably possible that I wasn't doing that. If you choose to interpret my words that way anyway, that's your problem, not mine.

First, it is in the words you use in your analysis, not the fact that you say "I'm not criticizing..." that count. Second, my interpretation of your words is very much your problem if your goal is to communicate. Look at your last two posts (before the one I am responding to) as an example of how to avoid playing the "blame the victim" game and still make your point.

[closetbiker]

Yeah, but which one's the troll? Based on the personal attack, I'd say it's Diesel...and IMO his ire should more properly be directed towards the motorist...

Go read closetbiker's posts in the sticky helmet thread if you really want to know what BostonFixed meant, otherwise, my advice is keep it to yourself, you're not adding anything to the discussion...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=96298

Yeah, despite that I've deleated most of my posts there, there still is a fair bit of info from others quoting me. I have much information on the questionable effectiveness of helmets, in particular on their effectiveness when a cyclist is being hit by a car.

For the most part, I've dropped the argument since I had to spend too much time with silly responses.

[Helmet Head]

Why not first approach a situation neutrally, instead of with any bias?
Interesting question.

SHORT ANSWER:
This is a forum for cyclists. My bias/interest therefore is on changing cyclist behavior.

LONG ANSWER:
If I participated in a forum for motorists, my bias/interest would be on changing motorist behavior.

Advocating what motorists should or shouldn't do on a cyclist forum makes as little sense as advocating what cyclists should or shouldn't do on a motorist forum. What would be the point of doing either? I think understand how motorists behavior is relevant, but discussing how motorists should change? That's out of scope in a cyclist forum.

To illustrate, consider a more extreme example. On a men-only forum dedicated to discussing relationship issues, I would be interested in discussing what men need to do in various situation with women. But if I were a guest on an otherwise women-only forum, I would focus on what women could do to get along better with men, to explain the man's perspective, etc. Whining and complaining about how motorists should change on a cyclist forum is as pointless as whining and complaining about how women should change on a men's forum, or whining and complaining about how men should change on a women's forum.

In other words, in terms of changing behavior, men should focus on men, women on women, motorists on motorists, and cyclists on cyclists.

That's why in a cyclist forum, I am biased towards focusing on what cyclists can change in their own behavior, and am not much interested in changing motorists.

[noisebeam]

That's why in a cyclist forum, I am biased towards focusing on what cyclists can change in their own behavior, and am not much interested in changing motorists.
Thats a fair answer.

But what about when funding issues come up? Does that bias then mean that when suggestions for funding/encouraging better driver skill/behavior are proposed, they are on this principle not supported?

Al

[Helmet Head]

Brian, I've done the full blown analysis in other threads with the pedantic assumptions. That's not what I was doing in this case. In particular, I made this statement in my first post:


However, I will say this: If you're riding on a quiet street at 6:30 am in a bike lane... be afraid. GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE. Please.
That statement, and everything else I said, stands regardless of what actually happened in this case.

Surely you understand from this that my advice to "be afraid" and "GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE" only applies IF the assumption, "you're riding on a quiet street at 6:30 am in a bike lane", holds.

You need me to be more explicit than that?


You imply some of your assumptions, such as the quiet street, but you put in into a context where it did not belong (assuming it was quiet because it was 6:30am).
How is my assumption "put in the wrong place"? Where in that post, do you think would be the right place, if not in the very statement that uses that assumption?

What specifically did I say in which post that you have a problem with, and what's your specific problem with it?

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, I've done the full blown analysis in other threads with the pedantic assumptions. That's not what I was doing in this case....

Surely you understand from this that my advice to "be afraid" and "GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE" only applies IF the assumption, "you're riding on a quiet street at 6:30 am in a bike lane", holds.

You need me to be more explicit than that?

I have no problem with your advice. However, the application of this advice in this specific situation was unwarrented due to the mistaken assumption.


How is my assumption "put in the wrong place"? Where in that post, do you think would be the right place, if not in the very statement that uses that assumption?

What specifically did I say in which post that you have a problem with, and what's your specific problem with it?

You need to read more carefully or perhaps I am misunderstanding. I said "...put in into a context where it did not belong...." This is precisely what I have a problem with.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, first you advised to me to state all my assumptions. When I pointed out that I did state my assumptions, then you said I shouldn't be making those particular assumptions, because they happen to not match the context, ignoring the fact that I had no way of knowing that when I made the assumption, which was the point of stating it in the first place, and is consistent with your sage advice.

So I ask again, what specifically did I say in which post that you have a problem with, and what's your specific problem with it?


...due to the mistaken assumption.
And what "mistaken assumption" was made?

If a man is found dead with a gun in his hand and a bullet hole in his head, and someone says, "if he was not murdered, this is a suicide", and then it turns out he was murdered, is saying "if he was not murdered" a "mistaken assumption"? Do you have a problem with that?

The point is, regardless of whether he was murdered, the original statement, "if he was not murdered, this is a suicide", is still true, and not problematic.

I believe my comments fall into the same category, particularly since they were carefully worded to refer to generic situations and not this specific one, and don't understand what your issue is with anything that I said. Am I missing something?

[Brian Ratliff]

It was pointed out that the assumption was wrong and, instead of changing it, you defended it. This is not the only thread you did this. Every thread where an accident is described, you do this. You make your assumptions, give your lecture, are told your assumptions are wrong, you defend your assumptions (apparently believing that your assumptions trump actual witness), you figure it is a losing battle, you stop commenting on the thread.

The specific post was the one where you admitted you could not believe my description of a road I ride on. If you are questioning my competence, come out and say it. Before you do, take into account I have more than your two years practicing the VC technique.

[Brian Ratliff]

The point is, regardless of whether he was murdered, the original statement, "if he was not murdered, this is a suicide", is still true, and not problematic.

I believe my comments fall into the same category, particularly since they were carefully worded to refer to generic situations and not this specific one, and don't understand what your issue is with anything that I said. Am I missing something?

Usually the title of the tread describes the topic being discussed. Naturally, I assume your comments are regarding the accident described in the OP. Your comments now indicate that instead of commenting on the topic of the thread, you are hijacking it.

[Sir Lunch-a-lot]

My sympathy to the family and friends of Eric Kautzky. May Christ be with you guys in this time of mourning.

Oddly enough, I am greatly saddened at this news even though I never knew the guy. Maybe bikers just have more sensitive emotions towards other bikers.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, if I questioned your competence, I would come out and say it.

If you think I'm questioning your competence, then come out and say that (the answer is, I'm not, and never did).

Is that what this is all about? Jeez.

When someone describes a scenario, how hard a time I have believing it to be true has nothing to do with who describes it, and everything to do with the scenario description itself. You know the saying, "if they made a movie about it, no one would believe it"? That's because the "it" is so hard to believe. It was in that sense that I meant the scenario you described was hard to believe, and I explained why.

By the way, I don't make assumptions about what actually happened (if I did, those may or may not be wrong), I make assumptions about what might have happened , or what was likely to have happened (those assumptions are true or false regardless of what actually happened). So of course I'm going to defend them when I'm told I'm "wrong" based on what did or did not actually happen, but you're mistaken if you think I'm ever arguing with what actually, really happened, which for the most part I write off as "we'll never know for sure".

As to whether a discussion about a hypothetical situation in a thread about an actual incident, and based on assumptions that might have been true in the actual incident, constitutes a highjack of that thread, we'll have to agree to disagree on that opinion. But I certainly cannot deny that is exactly what I do, and what I did in this thread too.

[sbhikes]

There are many times when I move aside into the bike lane to let a car pass, see in my mirror that another one is coming, but it is still some significant number of seconds back, do my shoulder check to verify it is clear, move left into the center of the lane, wait until I get the feedback that the driver of the approaching vehicle is aware of me (he slows, moves laterally, waves, or honks), then I move back into the bike lane, assured that the next car to pass me is driven by someone who is aware of my presence. It might seem like a hassle, but once it becomes habit, like with any other habit, it's relatively painless and becomes perfectly natural.

Am I the only one who finds this a ridiculous way to go about getting from here to there? I mean really now! Drivers never have to do that. If you are a slow driver you get into the slow land and then everyone who wants to pass you can go around. Or else if there's only one lane everybody just has to suffer behind you. You don't watch your rear-view mirror, pulling over for every faster car that comes along.

A bike lane gives you a slow lane so you don't have to do all that nonsense.

No way am I going to sit there fixated on all the cars behind me, yielding to them, each and every one, individually. That's ridiculous. I need to look where I'm going, in front of me, so I can avoid things and be attentive to what I'm doing.

[Helmet Head]

A bike lane gives you a slow lane so you don't have to do all that nonsense.
Tell that to Paul K... never mind.


No way am I going to sit there fixated on all the cars behind me, yielding to them, each and every one, individually. That's ridiculous. I need to look where I'm going, in front of me, so I can avoid things and be attentive to what I'm doing.
Suit yourself, but it's a lot easier and more natural than it sounds.

Like I've pointed out before, while car drivers normally don't do it since they're normally driving the speed of traffic, other slow vehicle drivers often do... in the last few months I've seen the following drivers do it: a bulldozer driver on my commute, a horse and carriage driver in France, me driving a loaded pickup, a parking meter maid, various construction vehicle drivers...

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Am I the only one who finds this a ridiculous way to go about getting from here to there? I mean really now!
I believe I have already commented on the lunacy of HH's Dynamic Swerving in Traffic Technique. My prediction that his teaching days will be numbered at one is based on the premise he teaches this technique to a minor who tells his/her parent about it.

[royalflash]

Helmet Head-You have really gone off the rails this time- normally you have some good advice but this idea of swerving in and out of the bike lane to block cars before swerving back out of their way is madness. Where you are cycling the traffic volumes must be very low. How are you going to achieve this technique with a constant stream of cars. It might just be possible to do this if you are on a long road with infrequent traffic and no intersections but try this in the city and you will not last long. I would like to see you try it here.

It is also not possible to monitor all directions (mainly front and back) with the precision that this technique would demand. And whatever happened to being predictable and being where motorists expect? motorists will certainly not expect you to be swerving in and out of the bike lane.

This technique would also certainly be illegal here in Germany and you would be fined if the police see it.

Just face it Helmet Head there's nothing you can do about being hit from behind apart from keeping as good a look out as possible behind and bailing out to the side if things look bad. Sometimes though your number is just up.

[Brian Ratliff]

By the way, I don't make assumptions about what actually happened (if I did, those may or may not be wrong), I make assumptions about what might have happened , or what was likely to have happened (those assumptions are true or false regardless of what actually happened). So of course I'm going to defend them when I'm told I'm "wrong" based on what did or did not actually happen, but you're mistaken if you think I'm ever arguing with what actually, really happened, which for the most part I write off as "we'll never know for sure".

As to whether a discussion about a hypothetical situation in a thread about an actual incident, and based on assumptions that might have been true in the actual incident, constitutes a highjack of that thread, we'll have to agree to disagree on that opinion. But I certainly cannot deny that is exactly what I do, and what I did in this thread too.

Good, I'm glad we got that cleared up. It would cause less confusion if you started another thread for your model situation, instead of posting your model under the topic of an actual event.

[Helmet Head]

But what about when funding issues come up? Does that bias then mean that when suggestions for funding/encouraging better driver skill/behavior are proposed, they are on this principle not supported?
If I weren't a libertarian, I would support government spending on bettering education of motorists with respect to cyclists without hesitation.

As a libertarian, I would only support such increases in funding if they were funded specifically through motorist user fees... gas tax, driver's licence surtax, toll road fees, etc.

[Helmet Head]

Helmet Head-You have really gone off the rails this time- normally you have some good advice but this idea of swerving in and out of the bike lane to block cars before swerving back out of their way is madness.
What's madness is your interpretation that what I'm advising here is "swerving in and out of the bike lane to block cars before swerving back out of their way".

Please show me the exact words, MY words, that lead you to this conclusion.

For the record, I do not BLOCK motorists. In general, I move aside before my presence would BLOCK them, but not before they become AWARE of my presence on the road.

It is simply riding in accordance to John Franklin's concept of primary riding position. If you still don't understand, I suggest you pick up a copy of Cyclecraft and check it out. This approach is also suggested by Robert Hurst's default position concept, which you can read about in his book, The Art of Urban Cycling.

Now, while neither goes into the details I cover here, I do believe that my advice to ride outside of the bike lane when there is no same-direction traffic is consistent with what they write. It is also consistent with the law, at least in CA, where 21208 does not obligate cyclists to ride in the bike lane unless they are going slower than same-direction traffic at that time, which clearly they are not when there is no same-direction traffic.

The only issue, then, is exactly when and how often do we transition states between "no same-direction faster traffic" and "same-direction faster traffic". Neither Hurst, Franklin nor the law specifies this. All I'm saying is how I draw that line, and why.

[Brian Ratliff]

If I weren't a libertarian, I would support government spending on bettering education of motorists with respect to cyclists without hesitation.

As a libertarian, I would only support such increases in funding if they were funded specifically through motorist user fees... gas tax, driver's licence surtax, toll road fees, etc.

If this is the case, how do you envoke change (no moterist is going to vote to be taxed for the sake of cyclists)? You are only working one side of the equation (cyclist's behavior) when you should be working both sides. Are your convictions as a libertarian stronger than your convictions as a cyclist? Or are you saying that because you have no problem cycling with the status quo that nobody else should either.

[Brian Ratliff]

What's madness is your interpretation that what I'm advising here is "swerving in and out of the bike lane to block cars before swerving back out of their way".

Please show me the exact words, MY words, that lead you to this conclusion.

For the record, I do not BLOCK motorists. In general, I move aside before my presence would BLOCK them, but not before they become AWARE of my presence on the road.

It is simply riding in accordance to John Franklin's concept of primary riding position. If you still don't understand, I suggest you pick up a copy of Cyclecraft and check it out. This approach is also suggested by Robert Hurst's default position concept, which you can read about in his book, The Art of Urban Cycling.

Now, while neither goes into the details I cover here, I do believe that my advice to ride outside of the bike lane when there is no same-direction traffic is consistent with what they write. It is also consistent with the law, at least in CA, where 21208 does not obligate cyclists to ride in the bike lane unless they are going slower than same-direction traffic at that time, which clearly they are not when there is no same-direction traffic.

The only issue, then, is exactly when and how often do we transition states between "no same-direction faster traffic" and "same-direction faster traffic". Neither Hurst, Franklin nor the law specifies this. All I'm saying is how I draw that line, and why.

If you are moving from the center of the lane to the right hand side every 5 seconds (as per my example of heavy traffic), this could be interpreted as swerving. I would certainly be hesitant to pass you. The confusion leading to the hesitation may get you what you want, but a confused moterist is also a pretty dangerous one, to my eyes.

[noisebeam]

If I weren't a libertarian, I would support government spending on bettering education of motorists with respect to cyclists without hesitation.

As a libertarian, I would only support such increases in funding if they were funded specifically through motorist user fees... gas tax, driver's licence surtax, toll road fees, etc.
Keep in mind that 'funding/encouraging' better driver behavior doesn't only mean classroom education.

It also includes road signs, Billboards, PSA on television/radio, etc.

All all current motorized vehicle centric facilities & signage only paid thru motorist user fees, tolls, etc.? No. Why shouldn't a tiny bit more of the giant bucket of money go to signs that educate motorists/cyclist as to behaviors they should expect and perform? For example there are some stretches of very narrow lane I must fully ride in center of to be safe. On this same stretch I get harrassed and agressively passed by drivers who clearly are trying to intimidate as they think its wrong. Why not some signs along this stretch that constantly remind motorists and cyclist that cyclist should use full lane? There are already speed limit signs, do not park signs, red means stop signs - who pays for those?

Al

[Helmet Head]

If you are moving from the center of the lane to the right hand side every 5 seconds (as per my example of heavy traffic), this could be interpreted as swerving. I would certainly be hesitant to pass you. The confusion leading to the hesitation may get you what you want, but a confused moterist is also a pretty dangerous one, to my eyes.
If the gaps were really about every 5 seconds, I would probably just stay in the bike lane, but use the slow/stop hand signal anytime I saw someone approach in my rear view mirror too close (laterally) to me.

I haven't measured on my watch to see what exactly a "significant gap" is, but any time there is a significant gap, that would constitute no other "same direction traffic at that time", then I do move out of the bike lane. But it's a very controlled merge, involving a shoulder check of a second or two to make sure it's clear (never relying on a mirror check alone for that), followed by a hand signal including pointing to my destination in the center of the lane, and then moving to that spot. I do the same when I move back to the bike lane. I don't just suddenly dart across the road back and forth between the bike lane and center of the lane without warning. I assure you, it does not appear like swerving to anyone. You might find that hard to believe, but I have confidence that you will not dismiss it out of hand. ;)

[Helmet Head]

If this is the case, how do you envoke change (no moterist is going to vote to be taxed for the sake of cyclists)? You are only working one side of the equation (cyclist's behavior) when you should be working both sides. Are your convictions as a libertarian stronger than your convictions as a cyclist? Or are you saying that because you have no problem cycling with the status quo that nobody else should either.
I am not aware of any reason to believe that there is any motorist behavior problem that needs to be solved for the sake of cyclists.

I am also not aware of any reason to believe that any problems others cite with cycling with the status quo could not be easily solved through changes in their own behavior as cyclists, who should be motivated to change because they are the ones experiencing the problem, rather than through changing the behavior of motorists who don't even a perceive a problem that would warrant change on their part, much less have any motivation to change.

The idea of motorists learning to be more careful around cyclists, or learning to appreciate the right of cyclists to ride on the road, is so nebulous. Others often cite the success of MADD and the efforts to reduce drunk driving, but the message there was so clear, "Don't drink and drive", and the motivation for change also quite clear: "drink and drive? go to jail".

What are we going to do, send someone to jail for accelerating (gunning their engine) as they pass a cyclist?

Send someone to jail for failing to notice a cyclist passing him on the right as he's turning right?

I mean sure, a little more tolerance for cyclists out there would be nice, but I don't see it as a big problem at all. The big problem is achieving that small increase in tolerance. Is it worth it? Seems like we have much bigger fish to fry, in particular in the area of getting cyclists to learn how to enjoy cycling in traffic without feeling out of place all the time.

[genec]

If this is the case, how do you envoke change (no motorist is going to vote to be taxed for the sake of cyclists)? You are only working one side of the equation (cyclist's behavior) when you should be working both sides. Are your convictions as a libertarian stronger than your convictions as a cyclist? Or are you saying that because you have no problem cycling with the status quo that nobody else should either.

This is an interesting issue... recently I went to a planning board meeting where the motorists DID chose to pay for a cyclist path... and they did it based not on the benefits to the cyclists, but based on the fact that without the path change (a bridge or tunnel) cyclists would cause the motorists delays at a major intersection while they waited for the cyclist triggered stop lights to change. The motorists saw the benefit of improving the cyclists' way as a way to decrease their own inconvienence.