Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

You say you 'fully agree' that expressing concern for such things is unreasonable yet you continue to express concern for this 'inadvertent drift.' Or are you just fearmongering to advance an anti-bike lane argument?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

The angle of the bicycle aiming towards Bay street could suggest that the cyclist had been proceeding in the bicycle lane (as I had been) towards campus, which is a very common destination because the campus doesn't have much parking. Bay street is one lane in this section, and the truck could have been making a free right turn, or jumping the gun as the light turned yellow.


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/07/18439300.php

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/07/breaking/stories/01breaking.htm

A non-fatal crash at the same intersection a week earlier:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/03/breaking/stories/04breaking.htm

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/07/18439300.php

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/07/breaking/stories/01breaking.htm

A non-fatal crash at the same intersection a week earlier:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/03/breaking/stories/04breaking.htm

And the response of motorists: "Subsequently, there have recently been letters to the editor of the local paper blaming cyclists for either insisting on their rights as a vehicle or somehow being ignorant of traffic regulations pertaining to bikes, pointing out that rights don't matter when you are facing a 10 ton truck."

"Some brave cyclists actually will behave as vehicles, will merge into the traffic lane, including taking the left lane of the two lane street when they need to make a left turn. There are a lot of fender bender rear end accidents on Mission due to the very complex driving environment, with people changing lanes to get around stalled left-blinking autos, and the bicycle will surely lose during such an incident."

Gee according to the above, even doing the right things are wrong...

And as always... "The driver claims he did not see the bicyclist."

Gene,

The people who are "blaming cyclists for ... insisting on their rights" think "insisting on their rights" means "daring to ride in the road". Ironically, the real problem is that cyclists who do "dare" to ride in the road do not insist on their right to ride further left whenever approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

Do you have any problem believing the truck driver did not see the bicyclist? That's pretty typical at any right turn.

Gene,

The people who are "blaming cyclists for ... insisting on their rights" think "insisting on their rights" means "daring to ride in the road". Ironically, the real problem is that cyclists who do "dare" to ride in the road do not insist on their right to ride further left whenever approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

Do you have any problem believing the truck driver did not see the bicyclist? That's pretty typical at any right turn.

What I have a problem with is the FACT that motorists simply do not understand their responsibilities and that any cyclist that does "insist on their rights" is perfectly in the right, yet most dunderheaded motorists insist that we are wrong.

It is well past time for this message to be blazed before the motoring public... simply that they DO NOT OWN the roads... AND THEY MUST SLOW DOWN.

As long as there is no enforcement of the laws and there is subtle ("zoom zoom," "ultimate driving machine") reinforcement of the motoring mentality... then motorists will continue to feel that might makes right.

What I have a problem with is the FACT that motorists simply do not understand their responsibilities and that any cyclist that does "insist on their rights" is perfectly in the right, yet most dunderheaded motorists insist that we are wrong.

It is well past time for this message to be blazed before the motoring public... simply that they DO NOT OWN the roads... AND THEY MUST SLOW DOWN.

As long as there is no enforcement of the laws and there is subtle ("zoom zoom," "ultimate driving machine") reinforcement of the motoring mentality... then motorists will continue to feel that might makes right.
The problem is that YOU do no understand their responsibilities. In particular, the right turning truck driver is NOT responsible for avoiding hitting someone who is trying to squeeze in and pass on his right as the truck driver is slowing down his truck to turn right. There is no evidence that the truck driver's speed was at issue here. If anything, it was the cyclist behind and to his right who was going too fast as he started passing the truck on the right as the truck was slowing down.

The bottom line is, if you're going to sit your 125-250 lbs @$$ on a 20 lbs bike on the streets next to 8,000 lbs trucks, you better know what the fuch you're doing.

There was an editorial in the LA Times this Sunday. In it the author mentioned that the rise in road rage has corresponded directly with the rise in horsepower, that road rage was hardly possible when most vehicles were low-powered. I believe this lends a little weight to what Gene has been saying.

The problem is that YOU do no understand their responsibilities. In particular, the right turning truck driver is NOT responsible for avoiding hitting someone who is trying to squeeze in and pass on his right as the truck driver is slowing down his truck to turn right. There is no evidence that the truck driver's speed was at issue here. If anything, it was the cyclist behind and to his right who was going too fast as he started passing the truck on the right as the truck was slowing down.

The bottom line is, if you're going to sit your 125-250 lbs @$$ on a 20 lbs bike on the streets next to 8,000 lbs trucks, you better know what the fuch you're doing.

I saw a motorist right hook another motorist on Thursday... the right hooked motorist signaled and pulled to the curb to make the turn. The "hooker" turned from the middle of the lane, without a signal, without pulling next to the curb. Who was wrong?

BTW I agree that a cyclist trying to squeeze by is in the wrong... however, did the trucker pass the cyclist first, and not take note that the cyclist was there in the first place?

I saw a motorist right hook another motorist on Thursday... the right hooked motorist signaled and pulled to the curb to make the turn. The "hooker" turned from the middle of the lane, without a signal, without pulling next to the curb. Who was wrong?
In that case, the hooker who "turned from the middle of the lane, without a signal, without pulling next to the curb."


BTW I agree that a cyclist trying to squeeze by is in the wrong... however, did the trucker pass the cyclist first, and not take note that the cyclist was there in the first place?
I don't know, but even if he did, if he remembers he just passed a cyclist and might want make sure he's not a dunderhead who will continue to pass on the right as the driver is slowing, he might remember to look. But he is not and should not be required to do that.

Gee you are absolutly right... we should just erase ALL those nasty stripes all over all roads... just too much darn maintenance... who needs 'em, who uses 'em anyway. Too darn restrictive. Hiways don't need 'em either. Why should anybody have to try to stay between the lines anyway. :rolleyes:

There's actually a traffic calming philosophy emanating from Europe which proposes doing just that, and if memory serves me correctly they also propose eliminating the distinction between pedestrian and vehicular space. It's oriented to neighborhood streets, and the theory is that it slows vehicular traffic down to near-pedestrian speeds.

That's one of the dumbest things that I've so far this week (and I've read some really dumb things).

I've seen plenty of road ragers in low hp and/or low hp/weight vehicles.
That's not what the article said. It didn't say that only high-horsepower vehicle drivers practiced road rage. He said that as the horsepower has increased so has road rage.

as someone who drives a 5 ton (with 30' long bin on the rear, tandem axle), I hope i can offer some experiences here:

- when i make a right turn in the 5 ton truck, i need to swing out LEFT before i start to turn right. This prevents the rear tandem axles from hopping the curb.

now often what happens is persons NOT familiar with how big trucks turn right, will try to sneak in my right side and make a right turn, without realizing that they are about to be crushed. They suddenly realize there is a huge truck turning right (they somehow missed the huge yellow turn signals on the truck), and they lean on their horn all pissed off....when in reality it was there fault. I do everything i can to look before i turn, often shoulder checking and looking at the mirrors two, three, sometimes four times before starting the turn.

Often cyclists will ride right up to the intersection line, and start getting pissed off that they are being squeezed into the curb. Again, they fail to realize how a big truck turns right.

perhaps with this knowledge, cyclists can ride a little more aware around intersections where trucks, both big and small, are turning. It might help people who think they are being cut off, realize that in fact they are not, and that the truck driver is in fact turning properly like they are taught in the transport driving schools. I'm not saying they are correct in their actions 100% of the time, but there are times when the cyclist can be at fault. In other words, if you see a medium to large truck straddling the curb lane and the next lane, often times its preparing to turn right. Do not put yourself in danger by riding up beside it! WAIT until it has completed its turn and then proceed.



you may flame and hate away and scream blue bloody murder now.

It's not the bike lane per se that's the problem, it's cyclo-segregationism. While I do believe a cyclist riding up ahead off to the side in a WOL is perhaps a bit more likely to be noticed than one separated by a BL stripe, there is certainly no guarantee. The solution to making drivers aware of us - ....


is to get more cyclists on the roads and paths and parking lots and school driveways.
is to get more people out of cars and walking and cycling and rollerblading and skateboarding to work and school and groceries and the cinema.
is to get people out of the carhead mindset.
is to get people out of their bubble of coffee, music and comfort control.
is to get our cities and towns designed to reduce the dependence on a multi ton vehicle for moving about.
is to build infrastructure that reinforces simple, human transport.
is to pull our heads out of our automotive asses.
is to stop making pseudo-scientific threads like this linking the death of a cyclist to a particular type of surface he was riding on. (plenty of cars and trucks swerve for no good reason - into oncoming traffic, into trucks, into the gutter, into the ditch, etc - the cyclist could have been a motorcycle, a trash barrel, a highway worker, or a school kid)

"cyclo-segregationism"

Gosh, I missed ol' Helmie and his $5 words!

In that case, the hooker who "turned from the middle of the lane, without a signal, without pulling next to the curb."


I don't know, but even if he did, if he remembers he just passed a cyclist and might want make sure he's not a dunderhead who will continue to pass on the right as the driver is slowing, he might remember to look. But he is not and should not be required to do that.

If it happened in CA, he is required to merge to the right and signal to make a right turn.

There's actually a traffic calming philosophy emanating from Europe which proposes doing just that, and if memory serves me correctly they also propose eliminating the distinction between pedestrian and vehicular space. It's oriented to neighborhood streets, and the theory is that it slows vehicular traffic down to near-pedestrian speeds.

Sure, in combination with slower roads, it works well... (just as your typical residential street may not have any lines on it at all). It will not work on 50MPH arterials that are designed as "urban freeways."

That's not what the article said. It didn't say that only high-horsepower vehicle drivers practiced road rage. He said that as the horsepower has increased so has road rage.

Pete has a point... higher horsepower vehicles existed in the '60's... the classic muscle cars. Road rage per se was not a problem back then... it pretty much erupted sometime in the 80s or so...

Who knows what triggered it... It wasn't horse power though. I am pretty sure a 455 cu in V8 with a 4 barrel carb delivers more gross HP than your typical 5.2 liter fuel injected "power auto" of today. Power to weight ratio has changed... but gross HP has probably gone down for most cars... there are some rare speciality cars that DO have a lot of HP, but these are not in the hands of the average driver.

Personally I think it is simply a response to a time-demanded society that has to absolutly gotta have it over night... that need for immediate gratification, coupled with more crowded roadways and denser populations... is a formula for STRESS.

It doesn't help when someone "buys into the ads" and buys "the ultimate driving machine" for well over $30K and has to sit fuming in bumper to bumper traffic.

as someone who drives a 5 ton (with 30' long bin on the rear, tandem axle), I hope i can offer some experiences here:

- when i make a right turn in the 5 ton truck, i need to swing out LEFT before i start to turn right. This prevents the rear tandem axles from hopping the curb.

now often what happens is persons NOT familiar with how big trucks turn right, will try to sneak in my right side and make a right turn, without realizing that they are about to be crushed. They suddenly realize there is a huge truck turning right (they somehow missed the huge yellow turn signals on the truck), and they lean on their horn all pissed off....when in reality it was there fault. I do everything i can to look before i turn, often shoulder checking and looking at the mirrors two, three, sometimes four times before starting the turn.

Often cyclists will ride right up to the intersection line, and start getting pissed off that they are being squeezed into the curb. Again, they fail to realize how a big truck turns right.

perhaps with this knowledge, cyclists can ride a little more aware around intersections where trucks, both big and small, are turning. It might help people who think they are being cut off, realize that in fact they are not, and that the truck driver is in fact turning properly like they are taught in the transport driving schools. I'm not saying they are correct in their actions 100% of the time, but there are times when the cyclist can be at fault. In other words, if you see a medium to large truck straddling the curb lane and the next lane, often times its preparing to turn right. Do not put yourself in danger by riding up beside it! WAIT until it has completed its turn and then proceed.



Well stated... of course all of this hinges on the "huge yellow turn signals." How often though, just for the sake of argument, might you pass a cyclist in a BL and then determine that perhaps you should not just "whip" around a corner?

I will admit that some cyclists can be just downright stupid in the presence of some vehicles... Over a year ago one of my riding partners (who typically does Triathlons) tried to pull the "sneak by a construction truck" near our old office. She made it, but more due to the awareness of the driver, than her "skill." She got a lecture from me later. She is not a regular commuter, and tended to generally do group rides... hence her road skills were, uh, just not well polished.

For the record, there were no bike lanes involved. It was just a WOL... covered with steel plates. It is now an off ramp, and I believe BL have been added to the road now.

Personally I think it is simply a response to a time-demanded society that has to absolutly gotta have it over night... that need for immediate gratification, coupled with more crowded roadways and denser populations... is a formula for STRESS.
Just to add some of my own thoughts to this; during the gas shortage a lot of attention was placed on the amount of gas wasted sitting in traffic. After the gas shortage in order to maintain the road building momentum it simply became the amount of time wasted sitting in traffic. As a personal note shortly after our last Governor made the problems of congestion one of his main issues, driver angst went up considerably.

If it happened in CA, he is required to merge to the right and signal to make a right turn.
There is no evidence that he was not signalling or that he was not "as far right as practicable" for his vehicle. Santa Cruz, by the way, is in CA.

Pete has a point... higher horsepower vehicles existed in the '60's... the classic muscle cars. Road rage per se was not a problem back then... it pretty much erupted sometime in the 80s or so...

Who knows what triggered it... It wasn't horse power though. I am pretty sure a 455 cu in V8 with a 4 barrel carb delivers more gross HP than your typical 5.2 liter fuel injected "power auto" of today. Power to weight ratio has changed... but gross HP has probably gone down for most cars... there are some rare speciality cars that DO have a lot of HP, but these are not in the hands of the average driver.

Personally I think it is simply a response to a time-demanded society that has to absolutly gotta have it over night... that need for immediate gratification, coupled with more crowded roadways and denser populations... is a formula for STRESS.

It doesn't help when someone "buys into the ads" and buys "the ultimate driving machine" for well over $30K and has to sit fuming in bumper to bumper traffic.

I know. Congestion.

There is no evidence that he was not signalling or that he was not "as far right as practicable" for his vehicle. Santa Cruz, by the way, is in CA.

I mentioned CA specifically, as you well know, other states deal with BL in different ways.

I know. Congestion.

Yeah so the solution has always been to "add another lane... " (like that has helped... )

Now it's "increase the speed."

I have to laugh everytime I hear one of those clean air PSAs on the radio...

"If everyone in California replaced all their light bulbs with CFLs, it would be just like removing 475,000 cars from the road." All I can think of is: "why not just remove 475,000 cars from the road... " Sigh.

"If everyone in California replaced all their light bulbs with CFLs, it would be just like removing 475,000 cars from the road." All I can think of is: "why not just remove 475,000 cars from the road... " Sigh.
+100

Thankfully not a death, but still yet another example of inadvertent drift into unnoticed cyclists riding to the right of the fog line:


ELMIRA, MI — William Aten and Brandon Inglehart love to bicycle great distances across northern Michigan, exactly what they were doing on a day that changed their lives.
"A short ride is 25 miles,” said Aten, 58, a retired school principal who lives in Boyne Falls.
On April 24, Aten and Inglehart, 33, a middle school science teacher, were cycling east, single-file along the paved shoulder of M-32 in Antrim County's Warner Township.
They were to the right of the fog line when a company truck driven by Darren Zimmerman, 39, of Gaylord struck them from behind, Antrim sheriff's reports said.
"It was in broad daylight with no visual obstructions,” said Blake Ringsmuth, a Traverse City attorney hired by the cyclists.

Full story: http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/aug/19hurtbikers.htm
I’ll let you guess if there were any criminal charges.

no death, no bike lane......shouldn't this thread more appropriately called "fearmonger slams bicyclists not riding his way?"


(helmet head), are you just fearmongering to advance an anti-bike lane argument?

Thankfully not a death, but still yet another example of inadvertent drift into unnoticed cyclists riding to the right of the fog line:

Yeah, it would have been much better had they been riding centered in the lane...especially when the news article mentions the following:

Police reports show Zimmerman was not intoxicated when the collision occurred, but he admitted to stooping over to reach for a jacket and paperwork that fell to the floor. He said he did not see the cyclists until he struck them, police documents show.

Yet more HH wishful thinking. :rolleyes:

no death, no bike lane......shouldn't this thread more appropriately called "fearmonger slams bicyclists not riding his way?"

I think "obsessive fearmongering ghoul" might be more appropriate.

Yeah, it would have been much better had they been riding centered in the lane...especially when the news article mentions the following:

Police reports show Zimmerman was not intoxicated when the collision occurred, but he admitted to stooping over to reach for a jacket and paperwork that fell to the floor. He said he did not see the cyclists until he struck them, police documents show.

Yet more HH wishful thinking. :rolleyes:
You missed my point.

To think that the reason the driver did not notice the cyclists is because he was focussed on stuff that fell to the floor requires taking the situation completely out of the 40 second long context that should be considered.

He stooped over to reach for a jacket and paperwork that fell to the floor moments before reaching the cyclists, yet he was unaware of their presence. Had they been riding centered in the lane, he would have been aware of their presence, and almost certainly not only have noticed them, but would have been slowing down and/or moving laterally to avoid hitting them, putting off the chore to reach for the stuff until after he had passed them.

Further, by riding centered and using mirrors to regularly monitor to the rear, the cyclists would be in a position to recognize whether the driver had not noticed them and take appropriate action in the highly unlikely event that he would not have noticed them had they been clearly in his intended path up ahead.

If they were going 15 and he was going 60, he was closing at 45 mph or 66 feet per second. That means he was only a half mile back 40 seconds prior to reach them. That's the point where they should have started trying to get his attention through lane position (most effective way to do that is to already be positioned "centerish" by default at that point). 20 seconds later he's still a quarter mile back and they might already be able to tell if he's going to slow down and/or move laterally to pass or not. That would be the time to continue moving laterally and maybe zig-zagging if confirmation of being noticed had not yet been obtained. 10 seconds later he's 10 seconds from reaching them and now about 660 feet back. That would be the time to turn around and look at him for a full second or two if confirmation of being noticed had not yet been obtained. Five seconds later , bailing into the dirt shoulder might be considered in the highly unlikely event that the driver now 330 feet back still was continuing at full speed without altering his course at all.

None of that is possible if you're just riding along in the shoulder or bike lane, because the normal behavior for the driver, whether he noticed the cyclists or not, is the same: continue at full speed without altering course.

I repeat, to think that the reason the driver did not notice the cyclists is because he was focussed on stuff that fell to the floor requires taking the situation completely out of the 40 second long context that should be considered.

From the point at which the driver was only a half-mile behind the cyclist, a significant percentage of the 40-second time span that elapsed before he reached them, the driver had to have focused on the road in front of him in order to keep from driving into the oncoming lane or onto the dirt shoulder. Yet he failed to notice the cyclists up ahead in the shoulder. This has nothing to do with the stuff that fell and he later had to reach for. This is quintessential inattentional blindness. The cyclists up ahead, because they were to the right of the fog line, were irrelevant to him. His subsconscious mind had no reason to bring their presence to his attention. It's like they weren't even there. That's the problem, though had that stuff not fallen it would never have been an issue, because he would have driven right past them. But because the stuff fell, and he reached for it, he momentarily drifted onto the paved shoulder into the unnoticed cyclists.

This is why I employ and advocate a default centerish position. If that's where the cyclists had been riding, odds are extremely high that all kinds of warning alarms would have been going off in the driver's mind, and he would have been fully aware of their presence up there, long before the stuff fell much less his decision to look away from the
apparently empty road to pick them up. It's not like a deer that suddenly appears out of nowhere into the driver's path. By riding this way, they would have been up there for a considerable time, long enough for it to have been almost impossible for him to not notice them, impossible for him to subconsciously dismiss their presence as irrelevant.

jeezus, that sounds a lot more prone to error than simply riding in a safe lane position, using high vis clothing and daytime visible blinkies and monitoring traffic with a mirror....

now, I do advocate riding visibly and taking the lane when necessary. I put a LOT of miles in on little travelled highways, unlike Head, and find that HH's patented wiggle-waggle, slow every overtaking car down or make them change lanes unecessary, unwise, and much more prone to cyclist error than simply shooting a consistently safe line while maintaining visibility with clothing, devices and blinkies.

do you do all those mental exercises for every approaching car, head? :rolleyes:

You missed my point.

To think that the reason the driver did not notice the cyclists is because he was focussed on stuff that fell to the floor requires taking the situation completely out of the 40 second long context that should be considered.

He stooped over to reach for a jacket and paperwork that fell to the floor moments before reaching the cyclists, yet he was unaware of their presence. Had they been riding centered in the lane, he would have been aware of their presence, and almost certainly not only have noticed them, but would have been slowing down and/or moving laterally to avoid hitting them, putting off the chore to reach for the stuff until after he had passed them.Yet another of your baseless assertions...you offer no evidence that this is true in the real world. As has been pointed out to you many times before, the angular difference between "centered" and "near the shoulder" is minuscule at the distances and speeds we're talking about.


Further, by riding centered and using mirrors to regularly monitor to the rear, the cyclists would be in a position to recognize whether the driver had not noticed them and take appropriate action in the highly unlikely event that he would not have noticed them had they been clearly in his intended path up ahead.

If they were going 15 and he was going 60, he was closing at 45 mph or 66 feet per second. That means he was only a half mile back 40 seconds prior to reach them. That's the point where they should have started trying to get his attention through lane position (most effective way to do that is to already be positioned "centerish" by default at that point). 20 seconds later he's still a quarter mile back and they might already be able to tell if he's going to slow down and/or move laterally to pass or not. That would be the time to continue moving laterally and maybe zig-zagging if confirmation of being noticed had not yet been obtained. 10 seconds later he's 10 seconds from reaching them and now about 660 feet back. That would be the time to turn around and look at him for a full second or two if confirmation of being noticed had not yet been obtained. Five seconds later , bailing into the dirt shoulder might be considered in the highly unlikely event that the driver now 330 feet back still was continuing at full speed without altering his course at all.

None of that is possible if you're just riding along in the shoulder or bike lane, because the normal behavior for the driver, whether he noticed the cyclists or not, is the same: continue at full speed without altering course.

I repeat, to think that the reason the driver did not notice the cyclists is because he was focussed on stuff that fell to the floor requires taking the situation completely out of the 40 second long context that should be considered.

Or, they could have simply ridden in the normal way, and used their mirrors to notice that the truck was not moving over. In that scenario, they can: a) move left a bit to try and force the driver over, and/or b) bail out if they think the driver isn't going to move.

Yet another of your baseless assertions...you offer no evidence that this is true in the real world. As has been pointed out to you many times before, the angular difference between "centered" and "near the shoulder" is minuscule at the distances and speeds we're talking about.
Evidence: http://www.cyclistview.com/laneposition.htm



Or, they could have simply ridden in the normal way, and used their mirrors to notice that the truck was not moving over. In that scenario, they can: a) move left a bit to try and force the driver over, and/or b) bail out if they think the driver isn't going to move.
Why would they expect something to be wrong if the truck did not move over if they are riding to the right of the fog line. I can't remember if you claim to use a mirror or not, but you write as if you're ignorant of what anyone who regularly uses a mirror to monitor to the rear would know: when riding to the right of a stripe, the vast majority of motorists make no adjustments in speed or position prior to passing the cyclist (see the above clip for a brief demonstration of this even without a stripe).

You missed my point.


If they were going 15 and he was going 60, he was closing at 45 mph or 66 feet per second. That means he was only a half mile back 40 seconds prior to reach them. That's the point where they should have started trying to get his attention through lane position (most effective way to do that is to already be positioned "centerish" by default at that point). 20 seconds later he's still a quarter mile back and they might already be able to tell if he's going to slow down and/or move laterally to pass or not. That would be the time to continue moving laterally and maybe zig-zagging if confirmation of being noticed had not yet been obtained. 10 seconds later he's 10 seconds from reaching them and now about 660 feet back. That would be the time to turn around and look at him for a full second or two if confirmation of being noticed had not yet been obtained. Five seconds later , bailing into the dirt shoulder might be considered in the highly unlikely event that the driver now 330 feet back still was continuing at full speed without altering his course at all.

Nice time space analysis... how well can you determine that there is something of a narrow profile ahead of you 1/2 mile ahead? How fast are they going... is it a bicycle, or motorcycle or a shiny glare spot on the road? Even a quarter mile away and you may still not be able to tell anything... And the cyclists... looking down the road what every 10 seconds? Maybe they can't tell anything (tiny moving spot in your mirror 1/2 mile away) at the first glance... or the second... now you have 20 seconds to respond.

And that is if the motorist wasn't speeding. :rolleyes:

Evidence: http://www.cyclistview.com/laneposition.htm



Why would they expect something to be wrong if the truck did not move over if they are riding to the right of the fog line. I can't remember if you claim to use a mirror or not, but you write as if you're ignorant of what anyone who regularly uses a mirror to monitor to the rear would know: when riding to the right of a stripe, the vast majority of motorists make no adjustments in speed or position prior to passing the cyclist (see the above clip for a brief demonstration of this even without a stripe).

I *always* ride with my Take-a-Look mirror. As for your assertion about "no adjustments in speed or position"...in my experience, that is completely untrue.

If I'm riding in a "standard" bike lane, I typically ride about 18" to the right of the line. In that position, I find that most cars will shift left in the lane, and many will put their wheels over the centerline when passing me.

jeezus, that sounds a lot more prone to error than simply riding in a safe lane position, using high vis clothing and daytime visible blinkies and monitoring traffic with a mirror....

now, I do advocate riding visibly and taking the lane when necessary. I put a LOT of miles in on little travelled highways, unlike Head, and find that HH's patented wiggle-waggle, slow every overtaking car down or make them change lanes unecessary, unwise, and much more prone to cyclist error than simply shooting a consistently safe line while maintaining visibility with clothing, devices and blinkies.

do you do all those mental exercises for every approaching car, head? :rolleyes:
It might "sound" that way, but it's really easy and not prone to error at all. Nothing is full proof of course, but for an accident like this to occur while you're riding in the center of the road by default all of the following would have to occur:
Motorist never notices cyclist(s) up ahead in his path, never slows down or moves left. NOTE: in all my years of cycling I've never seen this happen, not once. Not even close. Always, without exception, long before they reach me they show a sign of noticing me.
Cyclist(s) despite being in the habit of regularly monitoring to the rear every few seconds never notices the approaching motorist or that he is not adjusting his speed/position in order to avoid collision.For either one of those to occur is extremely unlikely. For both to occur simultaneously? Astronomical odds.

On the other hand, for an accident like this to occur while you're riding in the shoulder or bike lane of the road by default the following would have to occur:
Motorist never notices cyclist up ahead because cyclist is outside of motorist's intended path and so is subconsiously ignored.
Moments before reaching the cyclists, the motorist is distracted by something, and drifts as a result.I can't prove it, but I honestly believe (1) is very common, and wouldn't be surprised if it is true more than 50% of the time. (2) is rare, but happens. Who hasn't seen a distracted driver momentarily drift into a shoulder or bike lane while driving? Regardless of what the actual probabilities are, this thread is replete with examples of situations where both were simultaneously true. That's empirical evidence, for anyone to whom that might matter.

Evidence: http://www.cyclistview.com/laneposition.htm

That had to do with lane positioning in a situation in which there was no bike lane, and no shoulder. Sheesh.

That's a simple "take the lane" scenario...not a "Peek-a-Boo" scenario.

It might "sound" that way, but it's really easy and not prone to error at all. Nothing is full proof of course, but for an accident like this to occur while you're riding in the center of the road by default all of the following would have to occur:
Motorist never notices cyclist(s) up ahead in his path, never slows down or moves left. NOTE: in all my years of cycling I've never seen this happen, not once. Not even close. Always, without exception, long before they reach me they show a sign of noticing me.


As has been pointed out to you many times, inattentive drivers routinely run into vehicles that are directly in front of them (e.g., school buses, police cruisers stopped in the roadway with their emergency lights flashing, construction equipment and workers, etc., etc.).

It's rare, but it does happen. To assert that it never happens because it's never happened to you is yet another example of wishful thinking.

I can't prove it...

On this, we can agree.

To think that the reason the driver did not notice the cyclists is because he was focussed on stuff that fell to the floor requires taking the situation completely out of the 40 second long context that should be considered.

He stooped over to reach for a jacket and paperwork that fell to the floor moments before reaching the cyclists, yet he was unaware of their presence. Had they been riding centered in the lane, he would have been aware of their presence, and almost certainly not only have noticed them, but would have been slowing down and/or moving laterally to avoid hitting them, putting off the chore to reach for the stuff until after he had passed them.

Yep, absolutely.


...how well can you determine that there is something of a narrow profile ahead of you 1/2 mile ahead? How fast are they going... is it a bicycle, or motorcycle or a shiny glare spot on the road?

Well over 1/2 mile under sunny conditions. I can see that far ahead and so can the dump truck driver that blew at me to get out of his way a couple months ago. I didn't change my lane position and he wound up passing as he would pass any other vehicle, except for being Moron Cager with the horn as he passed. When he first sounded his horn, he was almost a mile back. From that far back he could tell damn good and well I was on a bicycle.

Another cyclist apparently killed by inadvertent drift (though while riding in a shoulder, not a bike lane).



Korol, 38, was biking on the north shoulder of Stony Plain Road, just west of Anthony Henday Drive, early Saturday when he was hit and killed by a Dodge Ram pickup.

Article:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=babc7d35-4f05-4b42-ab56-f0cff0a7a430

Thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=345000

Same incident, different article:


Published: Saturday, September 15
EDMONTON - Police investigating a hit-and run crash overnight that killed a 38-year-old cyclist are looking for a 1994 Dodge Ram with front-end or right-side damage.
The cyclist was riding west on the north shoulder of Stony Plain Road, just west of Anthony Henday Drive, when he was hit by the truck between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., said police.


Article:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=af03f822-9580-4cef-9a85-65e60f6f0b84&k=38258

Well over 1/2 mile under sunny conditions. I can see that far ahead and so can the dump truck driver that blew at me to get out of his way a couple months ago. I didn't change my lane position and he wound up passing as he would pass any other vehicle, except for being Moron Cager with the horn as he passed. When he first sounded his horn, he was almost a mile back. From that far back he could tell damn good and well I was on a bicycle.

If things were clear to him, why the moron cager bit with the horn?

And not everywhere has 1/2 mile straight visibility... there are several roads I ride on that have trees along the sides... from a 1/2 mile away "even on a bright sunny day," if you could see around the curves, you might not well see anything in the shadow of the trees, not even a cyclist in bright clothing.

There are many roads here that do not permit clear views of a mile, much less 1/2 mile. At 50 MPH a car covers 73 feet per second, if a sight line is only a 1/4 mile long, a driver will cover that distance in 18 seconds, or in well less than 1/2 a minute. That is providing of course that the motorist is at speed limit and not over, and is paying attention, not distracted by a cell phone, as they round the next curve.

Another cyclist apparently killed by inadvertent drift (though while riding in a shoulder, not a bike lane).
Being the devil's advocate, I have to ask this question:

If a cyclist can be hit from behind in a bike lane by something we call "inadvertent drift," then how is the white line so magical that it tends to produce this effect?

I submit that the white line is irrelevant to "inadvertent drift," but that driver inattention will occur regardless.

Some will say the the white line causes drivers to ignore everything to the right of that line. But I've also heard about the "magical powers of the white line" to protect a cyclist to the right of it.

How is it that a white line has no power to protect a cyclist, but at the same time, it has the power to lure motorists across it? I'm not buying it.

That said, I suggest that bike lane or not, driver inattention is the culprit. Let's put the problem where it belongs, in the lap of inattentive motorists. Whether you're in a bike lane or not, motorists have to pay attention to cyclists.

I'm not warring VC, I think vehicular cycling, properly understood, garners respect from motorists when they see we follow an easily-understandable pattern. Isn't that what bike lanes are supposed to do, show motorists we are predictable, and we ride in our own space? Predictability is our friend, in any case.

But let's not get bugaboo and spooky-do about bike lanes and shoulders, they have no special "sleepy-time" effect on motorists. If we accept that they did, every motorist in the US would have a license to cross into any lane willy-nilly, without responsibility.

That's my honest opinion, folks. The guy was 68 years old, for cryin' out loud, and was squinting to look for signs while he was supposed to be paying attention to the roadway.

Hay'll, I'm not even 50, and that could happen to me, too, if I was just as careless.

Another cyclist apparently killed by inadvertent drift (though while riding in a shoulder, not a bike lane).


Article:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=babc7d35-4f05-4b42-ab56-f0cff0a7a430

Thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=345000

Same incident, different article:

Article:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=af03f822-9580-4cef-9a85-65e60f6f0b84&k=38258

Did you happen to notice the time of the accident? Between 1 and 5 AM. And, no word on whether or not the cyclist had lights or reflectors, or was himself intoxicated.

FWIW, just like with auto accidents, many nighttime cyclist deaths are the result of biking while intoxicated. Where I live, we have one or two of these incidents per year - typically, the "cyclist" has lost their motor vehicle license due to previous problems with alcohol/drugs, and they're struck while riding on a darkened highway, with no lights or reflectors.

As with many of your posts, until the facts come in, this incident does nothing to confirm your theory of "inadvertent drift". And, you're a ghoul for posting it.

Some will say the the white line causes drivers to ignore everything to the right of that line. But I've also heard about the "magical powers of the white line" to protect a cyclist to the right of it.

How is it that a white line has no power to protect a cyclist, but at the same time, it has the power to lure motorists across it? I'm not buying it.

What makes you think HH believes in the "magical powers of the white line?" He's about as far outside of that camp as you can get.

Here is another apparent example. As usual we'll never know all the facts, but it looks like the usual ingredients for inadvertent drift into cyclists riding too far to the right.


Rural road
Light traffic
Cyclists riding far to the right in shoulder of wide lane (not confirmed, but reasonable assumption give that deputies "... say that even roads with wide shoulders can be dangerous.)


http://kob.com/article/stories/S196119.shtml?cat=516

Being the devil's advocate, I have to ask this question:

If a cyclist can be hit from behind in a bike lane by something we call "inadvertent drift," then how is the white line so magical that it tends to produce this effect?

I submit that the white line is irrelevant to "inadvertent drift," but that driver inattention will occur regardless.

Some will say the the white line causes drivers to ignore everything to the right of that line. But I've also heard about the "magical powers of the white line" to protect a cyclist to the right of it.

How is it that a white line has no power to protect a cyclist, but at the same time, it has the power to lure motorists across it? I'm not buying it.

That said, I suggest that bike lane or not, driver inattention is the culprit. Let's put the problem where it belongs, in the lap of inattentive motorists. Whether you're in a bike lane or not, motorists have to pay attention to cyclists.

I'm not warring VC, I think vehicular cycling, properly understood, garners respect from motorists when they see we follow an easily-understandable pattern. Isn't that what bike lanes are supposed to do, show motorists we are predictable, and we ride in our own space? Predictability is our friend, in any case.

But let's not get bugaboo and spooky-do about bike lanes and shoulders, they have no special "sleepy-time" effect on motorists. If we accept that they did, every motorist in the US would have a license to cross into any lane willy-nilly, without responsibility.

That's my honest opinion, folks. The guy was 68 years old, for cryin' out loud, and was squinting to look for signs while he was supposed to be paying attention to the roadway.

Hay'll, I'm not even 50, and that could happen to me, too, if I was just as careless.
I think the white bike lane or shoulder stripe makes it more likely that the motorist won't be paying any attention to what is in the space to the right of the stripe as compared to the attention he might give it if the stripe is not there.

I don't believe the stripe lures motorists. When there is no cyclist in the road and the shoulder is empty, then I believe the motorist is just as likely to drift into the shoulder, whether it is demarcated with a stripe or not. In that sense, the stripe makes no difference.

But, here's the key. If a cyclist is in the shoulder, then I do believe whether the cyclist is noticed is a significant factor in whether the motorist drifts into the shoulder. In particular, if he notices the cyclist, then he is much less likely to choose to pay attention to something else, and drift because he is distracted.

Combine that with the higher probability that a cyclist will be overlooked if he is riding in space separated by a stripe, and you have a higher probability that a cyclist in a marked shoulder (or bike lane) will be inadvertently drifted into than a cyclist riding in a shoulder that is not demarcated with a stripe.

I agree driver inattention is the problem - that's why I ride in a manner, and advocate riding in a manner, that utilizes techniques and practices designed to grab the attention of drivers. And a key part of that is to ride in the drivers "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft, p. 58) -- up ahead in his intended path -- to dissuade him for choosing to pay attention to something other than the road ahead.

and Heads' soapbox continues to froth uncontrollably...

Here is another apparent example. As usual we'll never know all the facts, but it looks like the usual ingredients for inadvertent drift into cyclists riding too far to the right.


Rural road
Light traffic
Cyclists riding far to the right in shoulder of wide lane (not confirmed, but reasonable assumption give that deputies "... say that even roads with wide shoulders can be dangerous.)


http://kob.com/article/stories/S196119.shtml?cat=516

Yep...that's why I ride on the left side of the yellow line, directly into oncoming traffic. I find it increases my "relevance" to oncoming drivers, as well as my "cognitive conspicuity".

I've yet to suffer from "inadvertent drift", so my theory must be correct, eh? :rolleyes:

I think the white bike lane or shoulder stripe makes it more likely that the motorist won't be paying any attention to what is in the space to the right of the stripe as compared to the attention he might give it if the stripe is not there.

I don't believe the stripe lures motorists. When there is no cyclist in the road and the shoulder is empty, then I believe the motorist is just as likely to drift into the shoulder, whether it is demarcated with a stripe or not. In that sense, the stripe makes no difference.

But, here's the key. If a cyclist is in the shoulder, then I do believe whether the cyclist is noticed is a significant factor in whether the motorist drifts into the shoulder. In particular, if he notices the cyclist, then he is much less likely to choose to pay attention to something else, and drift because he is distracted.

Combine that with the higher probability that a cyclist will be overlooked if he is riding in space separated by a stripe, and you have a higher probability that a cyclist in a marked shoulder (or bike lane) will be inadvertently drifted into than a cyclist riding in a shoulder that is not demarcated with a stripe.

So how does one demonstrate whether this is true or not?

If I'm further left, motorists will react earlier to my presence, often slowing down and moving over earlier compared to when I'm further right. I feel that this observed driver behavior justifies me riding further left in certain circumstances.

But all this doesn't necessarily mean that I am noticed sooner by being further left. It could be that cyclists in both positions are noticed at the same time, but the motorist seeing the cyclist further left instantly knows that he has to slow down or make a lateral movement, while the motorist seeing the cyclist further right has a little delay time because he's trying to figure out whether or not he should keep the same course.

I think the white bike lane or shoulder stripe makes it more likely that the motorist won't be paying any attention to what is in the space to the right of the stripe as compared to the attention he might give it if the stripe is not there.


Is that what you do when you drive?