Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

Is that what you do when you drive?
Yes. I've noticed that I pay much more attention to what's going on in the "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft) - my intended path up ahead in front of me - than I do elsewhere. As I normally intend on remaining between the stripes to my left and right, the zone of maximum surveillance is naturally defined by those stripes.

That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.

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 don't know.

One idea is with a study where randomly selected drivers are put in test vehicles with video cameras and audio recorders. They will be asked to drive a certain route and told to say "green car", "motorcycle", "bus", "taxi" and "bike" whenever they notice one of those. They will also be told that noticing a green car, motorcycle, bus or tax is worth 10 points, and noticing a bike is worth 1 point. This simulates driver distraction with relatively low priority given to noticing bikes. On the route will be bicyclists riding in various lane locations. Do this with enough drivers, and maybe a trend will be shown as to whether centered vs. right-biased cyclists are noticed more often and/or sooner.

The problem is how do you test whether a driver noticed a cyclist without requiring him to indicate somehow when he has noticed one, thus biasing him towards noticing bicyclists more than he would otherwise?

Maybe you could instruct them to look for people with red hair, and them have red headed bicyclists riding in various positions and see which if any is more likely to be noticed based on where they are riding. But even then because the driver is setup to look for people, he is less likely to consider a bicyclist irrelevant than he would otherwise.

Maybe sometime in the future we will be able to identify the part of the brain that becomes active in a given person when he notices a bicyclist with a portable brain scan machine that could be strapped to the heads of driver test subjects?

So you would calibrate the machine to a particular test subject in the lab, perhaps watching video. Or maybe it has to be calibrated on the road. Anyway, find out what happens when he sees a pretty girl, a Ferrari, a bicyclist, etc., then put him on the road on a route with bicyclists riding in various positions on the roadway. That way you never have to tell him we're looking for bicyclists. Any idea how far we are from technology like that?

I don't know.

One idea is with a study where randomly selected drivers are put in test vehicles with video cameras and audio recorders. They will be asked to drive a certain route and told to say "green car", "motorcycle", "bus", "taxi" and "bike" whenever they notice one of those. They will also be told that noticing a green car, motorcycle, bus or tax is worth 10 points, and noticing a bike is worth 1 point. This simulates driver distraction with relatively low priority given to noticing bikes. On the route will be bicyclists riding in various lane locations. Do this with enough drivers, and maybe a trend will be shown as to whether centered vs. right-biased cyclists are noticed more often and/or sooner.

The problem is how do you test whether a driver noticed a cyclist without requiring him to indicate somehow when he has noticed one, thus biasing him towards noticing bicyclists more than he would otherwise?

Maybe you could instruct them to look for people with red hair, and them have red headed bicyclists riding in various positions and see which if any is more likely to be noticed based on where they are riding. But even then because the driver is setup to look for people, he is less likely to consider a bicyclist irrelevant than he would otherwise.

Maybe sometime in the future we will be able to identify the part of the brain that becomes active in a given person when he notices a bicyclist with a portable brain scan machine that could be strapped to the heads of driver test subjects?

So you would calibrate the machine to a particular test subject in the lab, perhaps watching video. Or maybe it has to be calibrated on the road. Anyway, find out what happens when he sees a pretty girl, a Ferrari, a bicyclist, etc., then put him on the road on a route with bicyclists riding in various positions on the roadway. That way you never have to tell him we're looking for bicyclists. Any idea how far we are from technology like that?

Perhaps a better question is would you accept the results of such a study if it were made, and did not show your assumptions to be true?

Is that what you do when you drive?

I think that it is plausible. I conjecture that the way to test the hypothesis would be through simulations. While at the Census Bureau some colleagues worked on web design. They had a device that measures where eyes are tracking on the screen. I imagine that something similar could be done with an auto simulation.

Proof?

I just noticed the "Mr. Fearful" ... you are a naughty, naughty man, PF! ;)

Perhaps a better question is would you accept the results of such a study if it were made, and did not show your assumptions to be true?
Of course I would accept the results of such a study. Why wouldn't I?

I think that it is plausible. I conjecture that the way to test the hypothesis would be through simulations. While at the Census Bureau some colleagues worked on web design. They had a device that measures where eyes are tracking on the screen. I imagine that something similar could be done with an auto simulation.
Good idea except inattentional blindness is all about not noticing things that are plainly within one's field of view - the individual may be looking right at it and still not notice it (because, perhaps, his subconscious consider it to be irrelevant to him - not worthy of bringing to the attention of his conscious mind). This is because the "blindness" occurs in the cognitive processing, not in the sensoral processing.

Of course I would accept the results of such a study. Why wouldn't I?


Cognitive dissonance.

The fact you've posted hundreds of thousands of words developing, refining, and defending your unproven theories.

Your history of zealotry.

Good idea except inattentional blindness is all about not noticing things that are plainly within one's field of view - the individual may be looking right at it and still not notice it (because, perhaps, his subconscious consider it to be irrelevant to him - not worthy of bringing to the attention of his conscious mind). This is because the "blindness" occurs in the cognitive processing, not in the sensoral processing.

But then the driver would run over the simulated cyclist at a higher frequency. In other words, we could test different lateral placements, what the eyes physically notice, and the empirical results.

Cognitive dissonance.

The fact you've posted hundreds of thousands of words developing, refining, and defending your unproven theories.

Your history of zealotry.


But the evidence for or against many of these ideas is incomplete.

But the evidence for or against many of these ideas is incomplete.

Incomplete? Don't you mean the evidence for HH's theories/"ideas" is non-existent and/or fabricated from the whole cloth of HH's imagination? There is no need for anyone to produce evidence disproving HH's fanciful theories; the burden of producing credible evidence is his alone in order to support his claims of the safety benefits of his unique lane swerving theories.

Yes. I've noticed that I pay much more attention to what's going on in the "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft) - my intended path up ahead in front of me - than I do elsewhere. As I normally intend on remaining between the stripes to my left and right, the zone of maximum surveillance is naturally defined by those stripes.

That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.

At least you admit you're a sh1tty driver. I guess that's where your paranoia about other drivers doing the same thing comes from.

So, granted that your scanning of the road is less than exemplary, do you still manage to see cyclists in the bikelane and pass them safely, or do you inadvertantly drift into them?

And you of all people should know better than to let mere paint dictate where you should look or drive.

like a puppet on a string

Of course I would accept the results of such a study. Why wouldn't I?
Cognitive dissonance.

The fact you've posted hundreds of thousands of words developing, refining, and defending your unproven theories.

Your history of zealotry.

(1) and (2) contradict each other, (2) supports the idea that I would accept the results of such a study and refine my theories accordingly, and (3) is irrelevant.

Yeah, so I'm zealous about the idea of discovering, developing, refining and advocating cyclist best practices that avoid crashes and save cyclist lives. So what?

I guess I need to answer for you Serge, based upon your apparent inability to answer:

You have no proof and your supposition is just another Serge-"fact" that you pulled from your nether regions with nothing to substantiate it.
Proof?

Yes. I've noticed that I pay much more attention to what's going on in the "zone of maximum surveillance" (John Franklin, Cyclecraft) - my intended path up ahead in front of me - than I do elsewhere. As I normally intend on remaining between the stripes to my left and right, the zone of maximum surveillance is naturally defined by those stripes.

That's not to say that I pay NO attention to that which is outside of that zone, just that I give much more priority to that zone. Of course, at intersections the relevance of potential hazards coming from other directions gets high priority too. But parallel same-direction traffic in adjacent space separated by a guiding stripe is a relatively low priority in terms of where I pay attention.


At least you admit you're a sh1tty driver. I guess that's where your paranoia about other drivers doing the same thing comes from.
Do you feel better when you insult others?

That aside, I've driven safely without a single collision and very few close calls for hundreds of thousands of miles over 30 years.


So, granted that your scanning of the road is less than exemplary, do you still manage to see cyclists in the bikelane and pass them safely, or do you inadvertently drift into them?

And you of all people should know better than to let mere paint dictate where you should look or drive.
What makes you think my "scanning of the road is less than exemplary"? You think a driver should give just as much priority to what is outside of his path as to what is directly in front in his path?

As far as I know I manage to notice all cyclists in bike lanes. But, then, if I didn't notice one I wouldn't know that I didn't notice him.

When I'm a passenger in a car I do like to ask the driver when was the last time he noticed any cyclists seconds after we pass one. You should try it some time, then you might know where I'm coming from.

(1) and (2) contradict each other, (2) supports the idea that I would accept the results of such a study and refine my theories accordingly, and (3) is irrelevant.

Yeah, so I'm zealous about the idea of discovering, developing, refining and advocating cyclist best practices that avoid crashes and save cyclist lives. So what?

1) Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) is relevant, as it is "the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs."

2) With the amount of time you've spent attempting to promulgate your theory, you have a psychological "vested interest" in it, to the exclusion of all others. For example, your theories have been skewered by noted authorities in this field, and yet you persist in promulgating them despite any evidence as to their efficacy or necessity.

3) Is relevant - zealots typically ignore contradictory evidence. It's one of the hallmarks of zealotry.

When I'm a passenger in a car I do like to ask the driver when was the last time he noticed any cyclists seconds after we pass one. You should try it some time, then you might know where I'm coming from.


How does this fit in the with your "a cyclist is more attention-getting than a bus" sidebar?

When I'm a passenger in a car I do like to ask the driver when was the last time he noticed any cyclists seconds after we pass one. You should try it some time, then you might know where I'm coming from.

This "experiment" is of little relevence. Information doesn't need to be stored in the brain after the fact for the brain to recognize and adjust to a sensory object. The information of a cyclist (or car, or anything else) is relevent to the driver only in the seconds leading up to and during a passing action. As soon as the passing action is completed, the information can be discarded with no consequence to the driver. This is how humans filter their sensory experience and avoid information overload.

A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.

For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.

This "experiment" is of little relevence. Information doesn't need to be stored in the brain after the fact for the brain to recognize and adjust to a sensory object. The information of a cyclist (or car, or anything else) is relevent to the driver only in the seconds leading up to and during a passing action. As soon as the passing action is completed, the information can be discarded with no consequence to the driver. This is how humans filter their sensory experience and avoid information overload.

A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.

For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.

My wife, son, and I do this to each other when traveling... it is amazing what becomes relevant to whom.

For instance, while I might recall a blue bicycle, my wife might remember "that awful shirt." My son on the other hand may notice the "cool backpack." So while each one of us may remember seeing someone, and being aware of them, indeed their relevance is unique to the individual.

Incomplete? Don't you mean the evidence for HH's theories/"ideas" is non-existent and/or fabricated from the whole cloth of HH's imagination? There is no need for anyone to produce evidence disproving HH's fanciful theories; the burden of producing credible evidence is his alone in order to support his claims of the safety benefits of his unique lane swerving theories.

I don't know enough regarding whether JF's data was fabricated; but I recall some of your detailed characterizations and would agree that at a minimum, there are issues to be resolved. However, there are other theories running around A&S that avoid the acerbic challenges that HH encounters. Then again, HH jumps into the "pool" more often then others.

In the context of whether HH would accept or reject definitive proof that rejects his priors on cycling, I don't think that one can use HH's prior actions as a strong indicator since any evidence presented so far for many of the hot button topics has been pretty weak and subject to a high degree of interpretation. We should expect a good deal of resistance from people already taking the extreme positions.

Anyway, whenever this mythical definitive proof shows up, we can all observe how people react.

-G

Do you feel better when you insult others?

A little. :)


That aside, I've driven safely without a single collision and very few close calls for hundreds of thousands of miles over 30 years.

Way to go, champ. Have a cookie.


What makes you think my "scanning of the road is less than exemplary"? You think a driver should give just as much priority to what is outside of his path as to what is directly in front in his path?

Is that a trick question? If there's a chance things could come from outside that path and cross it, of course they should. What you describe doing is called 'tunnel vision'. Look it up.


As far as I know I manage to notice all cyclists in bike lanes. But, then, if I didn't notice one I wouldn't know that I didn't notice him.

I figure if you run into one, you're gonna notice them eventually (although anything's possible), and that's the danger you are oh so concerned about. The point is, how soon do you notice them? If you do somehow manage to pass them safely despite not actually noticing them, I don't really see a problem.

You seem to take every opportunity to tell us what 'most drivers' or 'most cyclists' do. Why not just tell us what you do, and we can learn by your fine example.

So tell us, in your considerable driving experience, how do you respond to cyclists on the bikelane?

If, as you say, you aren't an atypically skilled driver, is it so unreasonable to expect a similar response from others?

What do you observe other drivers actually doing? Don't bore us with more drivel about what some book tells you they're thinking, tell us what you actually see.


When I'm a passenger in a car I do like to ask the driver when was the last time he noticed any cyclists seconds after we pass one. You should try it some time, then you might know where I'm coming from.

The only other people I get in cars with are also cyclists, so probably not your ideal sample. Why don't you just tell us what they said, and save us all a bit of time.

A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist.

Better yet, ask them to mention each time they notice a cyclist as soon as they see them. Just how much later do they see them if they're in the bikelane?

This "experiment" is of little relevence. Information doesn't need to be stored in the brain after the fact for the brain to recognize and adjust to a sensory object. The information of a cyclist (or car, or anything else) is relevent to the driver only in the seconds leading up to and during a passing action. As soon as the passing action is completed, the information can be discarded with no consequence to the driver. This is how humans filter their sensory experience and avoid information overload.

A better experiment would be to ask said driver a second before passing the cyclist about said cyclist. This would indicate whether the information is in the driver's brain at a time when it is relevent.

For instance, if you asked me about blue Honda Accords 4 seconds after I just passed one going the other direction, I couldn't tell you if I had passed one or not. If you asked 2 seconds before I passed it, I could tell you. Similarly, if you asked me whether I passed a cyclist 4 seconds after the fact, even being a cyclist I couldn't say whether that notice would be stored in my brain. It's simply not relevent information anymore, and there is a constant stream of relevent information coming at me to contend with. Moreover, if I did keep the information in my brain, it is not because of anything to do with the passing event, it would be because I have a special interest in cycling and something about the cyclist caught my eye for asthetic reasons.
Good point. But I don't know if your test is any better.

After all, just asking the question brings attention to whatever you're asking about, and makes it relevant.
Being able to answer such a question doesn't really tell us where that cyclist was in the driver's awareness, especially with respect to whether he was sufficiently aware of his presence to inhibit him from choosing to attend to a distraction until after he passed him.

Better yet, ask them to mention each time they notice a cyclist as soon as they see them. Just how much later do they see them if they're in the bikelane?
What skews this test is the same thing that skews cycling enthusiasts (who are driving) from non-cyclist motorists. That is, people who are looking for bicyclists (because of the test, because they are cycling enthusiasts) have a different likelihood of noticing cyclists than are others.

But maybe if you get them to look for other things too, and make the cyclist's a relatively low priority, it would work.

For example, consider giving them points as follows depending on what they notice:

A green Accord - 10 points
A nun - 15 points.
A cow - 20 points
A tractor 10 points
A mailbox - 15 points
A female pedestrian or jogger - 20 points
A male pedestrian or jogger - 10 points
Any bicyclist - 1 pointIn other words, a list of things that will keep them busy, and you still measure how soon they notice each (relatively unimportant) cyclist, and correlate that with whether they are in a bike lane, shoulder, margin of a wide lane, or in the driver's path. Huh. That might work.

For example, consider giving them points as follows depending on what they notice:

A green Accord - 10 points
A nun - 15 points.
A cow - 20 points
A tractor 10 points
A mailbox - 15 points
A female pedestrian or jogger - 20 points
A male pedestrian or jogger - 10 points
Any bicyclist - 1 pointIn other words, a list of things that will keep them busy, and you still measure how soon they notice each (relatively unimportant) cyclist, and correlate that with whether they are in a bike lane, shoulder, margin of a wide lane, or in the driver's path. Huh. That might work.

Yeah. That won't skew the test at all :rolleyes:

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I came across this in a search:


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.

Actually, yes, the Gregg Easterbrook editorial in the LA Times that was mentioned upthread argues that average drivers do have "muscle car" horsepower nowadays. A Toyota Camry today does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds; a 1970 Ford Mustang Mach 1 Cobra Jet 428 did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. A Porsche Cayenne gets over 500 horsepower, which would have been absolutely unheard of in the 1960s; the same Mustang Cobra Jet is listed at 335 hp. Yes, 50% more horsepower than even one of the fabled muscle cars.

What's more, only 3,500 1970 Mustang Cobra Jets were ever made; the vast majority of cars then were much, much pokier. By contrast, there are already over 200,000 Porsche Cayennes on the road, and the Camry is America's most popular car with half a million (!) sold in the US every year.

An amazing graph showing how fleet average horsepower has skyrocketed in recent years (ever since rising fuel economy standards stalled) is here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/27/163819/327
The average car sold in 2006 gets both 60% more power and 60% more MPG than the average car sold in 1975.

The cars that we "share the road" with today are NOT the same cars that were on the roads when Vehicular Cycling was invented.

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I came across this in a search:



Actually, yes, the Gregg Easterbrook editorial in the LA Times that was mentioned upthread argues that average drivers do have "muscle car" horsepower nowadays. A Toyota Camry today does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds; a 1970 Ford Mustang Mach 1 Cobra Jet 428 did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. A Porsche Cayenne gets over 500 horsepower, which would have been absolutely unheard of in the 1960s; the same Mustang Cobra Jet is listed at 335 hp. Yes, 50% more horsepower than even one of the fabled muscle cars.

What's more, only 3,500 1970 Mustang Cobra Jets were ever made; the vast majority of cars then were much, much pokier. By contrast, there are already over 200,000 Porsche Cayennes on the road, and the Camry is America's most popular car with half a million (!) sold in the US every year.

An amazing graph showing how fleet average horsepower has skyrocketed in recent years (ever since rising fuel economy standards stalled) is here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/27/163819/327
The average car sold in 2006 gets both 60% more power and 60% more MPG than the average car sold in 1975.

The cars that we "share the road" with today are NOT the same cars that were on the roads when Vehicular Cycling was invented.

I don't doubt the data that you present. However, those data are rather far removed from the issues of operation in traffic. You have made a claim, while trying to conceal it, that the higher HP/ton of the present automotive population makes vehicular cycling more difficult. Such a claim needs to be either supported or withdrawn. Make up your mind as to which.

I don't doubt the data that you present. However, those data are rather far removed from the issues of operation in traffic. You have made a claim, while trying to conceal it, that the higher HP/ton of the present automotive population makes vehicular cycling more difficult. Such a claim needs to be either supported or withdrawn. Make up your mind as to which.

Well John, you are gone from here and thus won't reply, but the obvious claim to be made is that since the '70s we are dealing with motor traffic which has the ability to accelerate far faster than the cars that were around in when you coined the terms Effective Cycling, et. al.

Human reaction times have not changed, the bicycle, coupled with the average rider has not much changed either, yet the environment in which a vehicular cyclist operates has changed... as indicated by the data presented. Further, the distractions of the motorist have also increased thanks to a plethora of electronic devices now available for use in the car. And the average speed limits have gone up due to the 85% percentile rule.

So while the rules have indeed not changed... one of the "players" is now substantially more powerful, and distracted...

Care to play again?

Well John, you are gone from here and thus won't reply, but the obvious claim to be made is that since the '70s we are dealing with motor traffic which has the ability to accelerate far faster than the cars that were around in when you coined the terms Effective Cycling, et. al.

Human reaction times have not changed, the bicycle, coupled with the average rider has not much changed either, yet the environment in which a vehicular cyclist operates has changed... as indicated by the data presented. Further, the distractions of the motorist have also increased thanks to a plethora of electronic devices now available for use in the car. And the average speed limits have gone up due to the 85% percentile rule.

So while the rules have indeed not changed... one of the "players" is now substantially more powerful, and distracted...

Care to play again?

Gene, I didn't grow up when you did but from the stories I've heard, there were A LOT more drugged up people running around back then. Hard to believe that none of them were out driving. As to the cars they were driving, they stopped a whole lot slower than the cars of today, had dimmer headlights, worse handling, and much less forgiving bumpers not to mention the kids climbing all over the car (I know I was even back in the 80's).

Any comments on that?

Gene, I didn't grow up when you did but from the stories I've heard, there were A LOT more drugged up people running around back then. Hard to believe that none of them were out driving. As to the cars they were driving, they stopped a whole lot slower than the cars of today, had dimmer headlights, worse handling, and much less forgiving bumpers not to mention the kids climbing all over the car (I know I was even back in the 80's).

Any comments on that?

Yeah, there were also a lot fewer of them... over all... and while the cars may have "stopped a lot slower" they also traveled a lot slower...

Oh and I don't know that there aren't the same percentage of drugged up people running around today... if not on the same drugs, but others, given by prescription. (only now they can call in refills from the comfort of their car while doing 50MPH down the arterial road with a lousy 5 foot bike lane)

On Harrison County, Mississippi roads (Cowan Lorraine and Hwy 67), MDOT has installed corrugation under the right white line of the motorist lanes. The paved shoulder serves as, and is marked as, the bicycle lane. Even with 55 mph posted motorist speeds, we ride with confidence, knowing that a vehicle entering the bicycle lane will make a huge noise on the rumble strip, warning the bicyclist to eject to the right of way! Feedback will be appreciated, rocksnroads7 www.gulfcoastbicycleclub.com P.S. Is there anything we can do to support this bicyclist's family?

Such rumble strips will only possibly save a motorists life and can only negatively impact cycling safety. If a cyclist is present and a motorist drifts over it will be too late for any warning.
Many rural roads have such rumble on them in AZ and they are exceedingly jarring to cycle over, yet one must regularly cross the rumble to avoid debris, other cyclists, right turn lanes, parked/disabled vehicles, road construction signs, etc.
Al

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/rumble/synthesis/pro_res_rumble_library.htm
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/docs/gapstudy.pdf
http://www.bccc.bc.ca/srs/srs_photo_gallery8.html

DE did this: http://www.deldot.gov/information/media_gallery/2008/rumblestrips/dwc_rumble_strip_project_rt_1.pdf

I don't ride anywhere near this area so I can't really comment. I am surprised by the 9/60 motorist drifting in cyclist collisions though.

I recently was cycling on a newly paved road in PA where the centerline stripes had the rumble effect. The road was a narrow, winding one which as far as I know has no history of head on collisions (I work right off it so I imagine that I'd have heard of at least one of them if there were many). Anyway, it was interesting to be able to here exactly when motorists went over the centerline to pass me. The only downside I can see has to do with how many motorists pass me which is to drive with their passenger side tires on the centerline (almost a complete lane change). The rumble strips might make them less likely to move so far over to avoid feeling the rumbles during the pass.