Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

Absolutely not, but I do believe they're safer.

And I agree on your criteria to allow an individual to ride a certain way. I totally disagree with you, though, that all you need is riding experience to recommend a certain behavior to people. If that were the case, then experienced cyclists who have never worn a helmet would be authorities on bike helmet use.

Not sure what I said that made you think that. I did say, "Someone can have years of experience riding with traffic and still act extremely foolishly while riding in traffic." People who ride against traffic would fit into this category (assuming they've stuck around long enough to get years of experience doing it).



Even if there is truth to the idea that cyclists are more visible in the traffic lane than on the shoulder, HH's approach is so fervently pro-VC that a newbie who stumbles on this forum and reads the unopposed preaching of HH may be tempted to head right out into traffic and subject themselves to other, much more common, ways to get killed on their bikes.

Another factor that makes VC inadequate for a new cyclist is the implied assumption that a new cyclist won't be subject to the same cognitive lapses as the motorists, if not worse. Talk about distraction--here we have a new cyclist trying to figure out how to pedal, shift, drink, etc., all while processing the vehicles around them. How realistic is that?

Again, that's why you would ease into something such a cycling in traffic. I won't say that no one is dumb enough to try and learn how to simply pedal a bike in heavy traffic, but I really hope no one is that stupid. If they can use a computer to find Bikeforums, then I think it's relatively safe to say they are not that dumb.


I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with VC as a practice. However, the experience of the rider, local laws, local driver attitudes toward cyclists, quality of roads, shoulders, bike lanes, and bike paths, and other factors all come into consideration. Certainly enough variables to keep any reasonable individual from making a blanket recommendation on the subject.

And finally, the delivery method. These are pure scare tactics. What is reported in the news about a collision with a cyclist may or may not be complete or even true, and HH uses these events to push his own agenda, even to the point of sounding on several occasions like he's blaming the dead cyclist for where he was riding. All if this with no consideration of what local practices and laws are, never mind the absolutely disgusting assumption that the cyclist would somehow be alive today if he/she had just done what HH said.

I've cycled in quite a few different states and in very urban to very rural areas. Not much changes except the scenery. The only local law that might affect me as a cyclist is a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law but with the given exceptions, I feel I could pretty easily talk my way out of a ticket if ever cited for that. I'm not going to obey a law that goes against basic principles of traffic.

It's your opinion that his method is scare tactics. HH might use an event to reinforce his method and if it happens to be a death that matches exactly the criteria for why he suggests the method, then can you really fault him? I think the people who preach stay out of the way are the one using scare tactics (go read the logging truck thread about how logging trucks can't stop).


We live in an unfortunate world where someone can google a couple articles and come on an online forum and be easily misconstrued as actually knowing something or being some kind of authority. That's dangerous to a cyclist who may or may not fully understand VC, but who may think after reading the scare tactics of the self-proclaimed authority on the subject that all they need to do is ride in traffic lanes and they'll be safer.

People all time preach that just "ride in a bike lane and you'll be safe. Stay out of traffic and you'll be safe." The ridiculousness of those statements is that if you are on the road, you are part of traffic. You canNOT just ride outside of it and think you are not part of it. At least with what HH is saying, you are forced to be part of traffic. If someone is not comfortable being part of traffic, then they shouldn't try his method, and they shouldn't be on a bike in the road either.

I've cycled in quite a few different states and in very urban to very rural areas. Not much changes except the scenery. The only local law that might affect me as a cyclist is a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law but with the given exceptions, I feel I could pretty easily talk my way out of a ticket if ever cited for that. I'm not going to obey a law that goes against basic principles of traffic.



You may want to set up a legal consulting services in Quebec, Canada, where it is illegal to ride outside the bike lane if one is provided on the road. You should be able to make a lot of money.

But, French speaking is preferred.:D

How many cyclists would have to die like this in shoulders and bike lanes due to inadvertent drift before you will start caring?

So now, because I disagree with what you're arguing and how you're doing it, I don't care that cyclists get killed?

Huh? It was a simple question, for which the answer is a number, or an estimate for a number.

Now in this thread we've established that a dozen or so cyclists have been killed in shoulders and bike lanes due to inadvertent drift, and that number is obviously not big enough for you to care about this issue (or at least you care more about other issues, like cyclists in the center of the lane being run over from behind).

So I'm just wondering... what if it was 50 per year?
100?
500?

How many? Or would it not even matter if the only way cyclists were killed was like this?

Seriously, imagine ten cyclists in your immediate area killed in one month by motorists who did not notice the cyclist up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane, chose to attend to a distraction, and, while they were doing so, inadvertently drifted into the shoulder and killed the cyclist. And, say, in all those cases the motorists argued compellingly that they did not notice the cyclist up ahead. I'm just curious how many (again, I'm asking for a number) have to die like that before you would start caring about this issue.

What's the number?

McNair Bostick - Gainesville, Florida

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/060830death.php

You may want to set up a legal consulting services in Quebec, Canada, where it is illegal to ride outside the bike lane if one is provided on the road. You should be able to make a lot of money.

But, French speaking is preferred.:D
Can you cite the law?

In California, we have such a law, but it has many exceptions. The DLLP method I advocate results in a cycling methodology that is legally consistent, at least with California law.



Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

In particular, 21208 does not apply when faster same-direction traffic is not present, which is when I'm not in the bike lane. As I see them approach in my mirror, and after I am much more likely to have their attention, but before they've reached me, I move aside into the bike lane. In order to reduce the likelihood of the kind of inadvertent drift crash that this thread is about.

How many cyclists would have to die like this in shoulders and bike lanes due to inadvertent drift before you will start caring?
Serge, Dr. Pete's position is that he believes cyclist deaths occur more frequently in main travel lanes than in bike lanes. I didn't read into any of his comments that he didn't care.

Sorry, I meant start caring about the issue of inadvertent drift into shoulders and bike lanes.

Two more.

+++++++++++++++++
The Washington County district attorney's office announced Tuesday that a grand jury declined to indict Patricia Louise Suhrbier, 58, of Hillsboro in the May 29 deaths of Sheryl and Darrel McDaniel. The longtime cyclists, both wearing helmets and bright yellow jerseys, were struck while riding on the shoulder of Oregon 47 south of Forest Grove.
...
Police reports say Sheryl McDaniel, 61, was riding slightly behind and to the left of her husband, Darrel McDaniel, 65, northbound on the paved shoulder of Oregon 47 just north of Southwest Anderson Road. About 11:45 a.m. on a sunny day, Suhrbier's 2002 Saab, also northbound on the two-lane road, drifted 21 inches over the fog line and hit the two Hillsboro cyclists.

Suhrbier told police she did not know why she went off the highway.

Two months of investigation by the county's Crash Analysis Reconstruction Team determined that Suhrbier was going about 40 mph in a 55-mph zone, did not have a cell phone in her car and was not impaired by alcohol or drugs. She had no criminal history and had never received a traffic ticket.

"It appears to be a matter of momentary inattention," Quinn said.

++++++++++++++++++++
Prosecutors said the case involving the Aug. 5 death of bicyclist Michael J. Wilberding, 58, of Tigard was more clearcut and will not be presented to a grand jury. Wilberding, who was in a bike lane and wearing a helmet, died four days after being hit by a car driven by Aaron M. Hessel, 25, of Beaverton.
...
Janelle Factora Wipper, deputy district attorney, said Tuesday that she decided against taking Hessel's case to a grand jury because the facts showed no criminal liability and the victim's family did not want the driver charged.

According to police reports, Hessel was traveling at a crawl and appropriately signaled his left turn off westbound Southwest Fifth Street onto Washington Avenue at 6:22 p.m. on Aug. 1. He was not impaired by alcohol or drugs -- but said he was blinded by the sun and didn't see Wilberding eastbound on Fifth.

"I'm not excusing him for not seeing the bicyclist, but in our society we are trained to look for other cars," said Officer Mark Hyde, spokesman for the Beaverton Police Department. "It would have been harder for him to explain not seeing a car than not seeing a bicyclist."
++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=230271

Huh? It was a simple question, for which the answer is a number, or an estimate for a number.

Now in this thread we've established that a dozen or so cyclists have been killed in shoulders and bike lanes due to inadvertent drift, and that number is obviously not big enough for you to care about this issue (or at least you care more about other issues, like cyclists in the center of the lane being run over from behind).

So I'm just wondering... what if it was 50 per year?
100?
500?

How many? Or would it not even matter if the only way cyclists were killed was like this?

Seriously, imagine ten cyclists in your immediate area killed in one month by motorists who did not notice the cyclist up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane, chose to attend to a distraction, and, while they were doing so, inadvertently drifted into the shoulder and killed the cyclist. And, say, in all those cases the motorists argued compellingly that they did not notice the cyclist up ahead. I'm just curious how many (again, I'm asking for a number) have to die like that before you would start caring about this issue.

What's the number?

Your question is based on the assumption that I don't care about the issue. You've clearly deluded yourself into thinking that because you have a theory that you care about the issue, and that by disagreeing with you I don't. It's insulting, condescending, and a complete fabrication, but I don't know why I would expect anything else from you.

Can you cite the law?




Here is the link (in Enlish):

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/publications/reseau/velo/guide_velo_mai04_en.pdf

The fine is $35.

Relevent Quebec Highway Safety Code:

Sec 492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

Ref: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_24_2/C24_2_A.html

So if you came to visit Quebec, bring lots of money if you want to ignore bike lanes - speaking no French or do not understand a traffic ticket written in French is not an excuse when dealing with Quebec courts. Mercy buckup.

Many juridictions such as New South Wales in Australia have similar legislations.

It's $15-30 for not riding in the roadway to the far right! They would make a mint off of me...

Ok, then, Dr Pete, what do you suggest cyclists do to deal with the problem of inadvertent by same-direction traffic into shoulders and bike lanes?

Ok, then, Dr Pete, what do you suggest cyclists do to deal with the problem of inadvertent by same-direction traffic into shoulders and bike lanes?

It's already being done on shoulders - depressions built into the paving that make a lot of noise and shake the car when driven over. These should be positioned left of the right hand outside lane or bike lane marking (to date, I have only seen them in the actual shoulder paving - right of the white line) to wake up the driver before they enter the shoulder or bike lane.

Ok, then, Dr Pete, what do you suggest cyclists do to deal with the problem of inadvertent by same-direction traffic into shoulders and bike lanes?

http://images.rei.com/media/680634Lrg.jpg

Its sophisticated auto-sensing technology allows it to grab the attention of anyone behind you no matter WHERE you are on the road.

If you're in a bike lane, the motorist will see you.

If you're in the traffic lane, the motorist will see you.

If you're on the shoulder, well, you get the idea.

Ok, then, Dr Pete, what do you suggest cyclists do to deal with the problem of inadvertent by same-direction traffic into shoulders and bike lanes?

Well wacky unproven theories by self-proclaimed expert club riders isn't going to help anyone...how about the tried and true method of PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND YOU? We can't control what other users of the road do, but if we are alert and paying attention, we can avoid becoming victims of their stupidity, inattentiveness and impatience 99% of the time - the other 1% 'the perfect storm' is out of our control and must be left to faith.

http://images.rei.com/media/680634Lrg.jpg

Its sophisticated auto-sensing technology allows it to grab the attention of anyone behind you no matter WHERE you are on the road.Hehe! :D

FYI, the Planet Bike SuperFlash (http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=PBBSF&tnum=2820719&c=3758772) is right up there with the NiteRider in my testing (see this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=227770) for pics and video comparison), and is a full stand-alone blinkie (no wires, lightweight and sleek). It features similar auto-sensing technology, too!

No reports yet on whether these work in Fantasy, however. Humans from Fantasy are resistant to technology, probably because it very seldom rains, snows or gets dark there. In other locales, such as Reality, the reports from Bekologist, and from a stranger who overtook me with my own SuperFlash, indicate that the auto-sensing technology makes cyclists very conspicuous from a rear view, even from long ranges in broad daylight, regardless of their precise lane position.

http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/classy.jpg
the SuperFlash is a nice fit on a classy road bike

Husband and wife killed due to drift
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=230271
northbound on the two-lane road, drifted 21 inches over the fog line and hit the two Hillsboro cyclists.

Cyclist Killed, Driver Arrested (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_100306_news_cyclist_killed.c5e53d.html)

Bicyclist struck, killed on his 26th birthday

10:04 AM PDT on Tuesday, October 3, 2006

By TERESA BELL, kgw.com Staff

MILWAUKIE, Ore. -- A bicyclist was struck and killed on his birthday, along Highway 99E, just south of Milwaukie late Monday night and the driver who hit him may have been drunk, police said.

Oregon State Police said the crash happened around 9:30 p.m., on Highway 99E, also known as SE McLoughlin Blvd, between Oak Grove Blvd. and SE Silverleaf.

Daniel Kimball Frank, of Milwaukie, was pronounced dead at the scene. He had just turned 26-years old. Police said it appeared that Frank was traveling northbound in the bike lane when he was hit.

The driver of the car, Jennifer Ballew, 32, of Clackamas was not injured. She was later arrested on one count of manslaughter in the second degree and lodged in the Clackamas County Jail. Investigators said they suspect she may have been driving impaired, possibly from combining prescription medications and alcohol.

The road re-opened around 3 a.m. and investigators were on scene until about 3:20 a.m.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=234060

Investigators said they suspect she may have been driving impaired, possibly from combining prescription medications and alcohol.

This was possibly a drunk driver caused death... not a bike lane death... Ken Kifer's death proved you can do everything right and still be killed by a drunk driver from no where.

This one does not belong in your "case file."

What is the matter with everyone today?

So because the driver overlooked or ignored the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane due to being drunk, and then drifted into the bike lane, it's not a bike lane death? Hello?

I don't know about you, but the main reason I'm trying to get the attention of drivers when I'm out there, is because a lot of them are drunk, drowsy, distracted or all of the above. And the last place you should be if you're trying to get the attention of drunk, drowsy and distracted drivers is in the bike lane, because they're the last ones who will pay attention to you in there.

What is the matter with everyone today?

So because the driver overlooked or ignored the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane due to being drunk, and then drifted into the bike lane, it's not a bike lane death? Hello?

I don't know about you, but the main reason I'm trying to get the attention of drivers when I'm out there, is because a lot of them are drunk, drowsy, distracted or all of the above. And the last place you should be if you're trying to get the attention of drunk, drowsy and distracted drivers is in the bike lane, because they're the last ones who will pay attention to you in there.

Well we really don't know enough details... but it is possible that the driver was attracted by lights as drunk drivers tend to fixate... So this is NOT your classic BL death... Also there are too many other variables, such as whether the cyclist was even lit, how they were dressed, and if they were even going the right way.

For all the data currently known, you can just as easily blame this on a phase of the moon.

Was the cyclist in the bike lane when he was killed? YES
Was he killed by a motorist who, apparently unintentionally (inadvertently) drifted into the bike lane? YES

That makes it a bike lane death in this thead.

What if it was a meteorite instead of a drunk driver? What if it was lightning? Still the bike lane's fault?

HH, why is it that the inattentive drifting motorist always seems to drift right into a cyclist? I mean, there's a lot of road out there, and not so many cyclists, so one would assume that when an inattentive motorist drifts, they'd be more likely to drift into an empty bike lane. Now I know that happens too, but most cars hold their lane, and the number of collisions suggests that there's something more at work than random drifting meeting up with a wrong place, wrong time cyclist.

Who said it was the bike lane's fault?

I said it was a bike lane death.

Whether the bike lane and the cyclist's choice to be riding in the bike lane at that point were contributory causes is what the debate is about.

Was the cyclist in the bike lane when he was killed? YES
Was he killed by a motorist who, apparently unintentionally (inadvertently) drifted into the bike lane? YES

That makes it a bike lane death in this thead.

So are you also keeping track of deaths that occur out of bike lanes... or is the fact that since most cyclists will ride in a bike lane, so therefore that is where they might be likely to be encountered, have any bearing on your "data."

As I mentioned before... every cyclist reported here was also clothed... so perhaps we should ride naked instead.

People die in hospitals too... if we stay out of hospitals when we are sick, will that keep us from dying?

Yes, I note other types of deaths, though not in a thread titled "bike lane deaths".

I will say that the number of deaths of cyclists in regular lanes seems to be very small, despite the prevalance of such roads and the numbers of cyclists on them.

Klokow was the last one I can recall, and that arguably was an intersection death.

But between intersections, deaths to sensory conspicuous cyclists (meaning daylight not blinded by the sun, or in the dark and cyclist is properly outfitted with lights) occur almost exclusively in bike lanes and shoulders, despite the wide prevalence of roads without bike lanes and shoulders, and the large numbers of cyclists who ride on them.
How do you explain that? The naked analogy does not work, because there aren't large numbers of cyclists who cycle naked.

HH, why is it that the inattentive drifting motorist always seems to drift right into a cyclist? I mean, there's a lot of road out there, and not so many cyclists, so one would assume that when an inattentive motorist drifts, they'd be more likely to drift into an empty bike lane. Now I know that happens too, but most cars hold their lane, and the number of collisions suggests that there's something more at work than random drifting meeting up with a wrong place, wrong time cyclist.
I disagree. I think most cyclists ride near the stripe, and drift across the stripe is much more prevalent than most people realize.

But if you're not looking for it, then, ironically, inattentional blindness is probably preventing you from noticing it.
Start looking for it, and you'll be surprised at how often you'll notice it. I see it all the time.

I disagree. I think most cyclists ride near the stripe, and drift across the stripe is much more prevalent than most people realize.

But if you're not looking for it, then, ironically, inattentional blindness is probably preventing you from noticing it.
Start looking for it, and you'll be surprised at how often you'll notice it. I see it all the time.I agree that motorists drift within their lane, and will skirt the lane markings. That doesn't explain how a boy riding in the bike lane gets his backpack embedded in the grill of an SUV when he's hit square on. There's more at work there than just skirting the white line.

I agree that motorists drift within their lane, and will skirt the lane markings. That doesn't explain how a boy riding in the bike lane gets his backpack embedded in the grill of an SUV when he's hit square on. There's more at work there than just skirting the white line.
Why? If the boy was riding on or near the stripe, as cyclists often do, and the SUV drifted into the bike lane a foot or two, as motorists often do, the strike could easily have flung the boy to his left, closer to the center of the grill.

In some places drift is more likely than in others. You can see this by how much painted stripe wear differs from place to place. In one place on my commute, about 20 feet of BL stripe has been completely worn away.

Based on sbhikes's pictures in her "static lane positioning" thread, the boy was almost certainly riding right next to the line, otherwise he would have been biking through a LOT of sand. The motorist in that situation would not have had to drift very far at all to hit him.

HH, why is it that the inattentive drifting motorist always seems to drift right into a cyclist? I mean, there's a lot of road out there, and not so many cyclists, so one would assume that when an inattentive motorist drifts, they'd be more likely to drift into an empty bike lane. Now I know that happens too, but most cars hold their lane, and the number of collisions suggests that there's something more at work than random drifting meeting up with a wrong place, wrong time cyclist.
Why do cars always drift right; actually, they don't. In 1976 I was a paramedic for the Eugene-Springfield Ambulance, and was working out of the Springfield location when we got a Code 3 alarm on the McKenzie Highway.

We went up as fast as we dared, but it took us almost 45 minutes to make it to the scene of the accident. There, we found a large American car had drifted over the center line, and hit a Volkswagen beetle head-on (two-lane road). In it, a mother and father were in their seats, dead. In the back, a two-year old was also dead. But a baby in a car seat survived. The driver of the large American car had been driving after working all night, fallen asleep, and drifted over the center line. He woke up after the crash, and was trapped in his car. We extricated him, and I plugged an IV into his arm, using an 18 gauge needle, and putting fluids into him quickly. We had to transport him and the newly-orphaned baby in the same ambulance.

When we got to the hospital, the first thing the ER doc did was to pull out my IV. He looked at the needle, and said, "Oh, I thought that was a 21 gauge needle." (Other paramedics will get this one, and I'll let you figure it out.) It took him about 8 pokes in both arms to re-establish that IV line in his arm, and you know what...I didn't care. This @#$% guy had just killed three people, wiped out a family.

Now, I'll tell you what. If a Volkswagen beetle in the lane failed to stop this guy, imagine thinking that a bicyclist would somehow be more conspicuous to this driver as he drifted off into oblivion. It could have been a Mac truck and the driver would not have seen it (actually, in my mind a log truck would have been preferable to the VW with a family; at least the driver would have been the one killed, and not the family).

So if it seems at times that I've got something behind my discussion of this concept of DLLP that Helmet Head keeps bringing up, I do...several dead people that I've attended to.

A couple of other points that have not come out in discussions.

--If a road turns a bit to the left, then the bicyclist in a bike lane is right in front of the driver, and the person riding in the lane is somewhat outside the driver's view forward. In these circumstances, wouldn't the bicyclist in the bicycle lane be more visible to the driver, if we accept the DLLP hypothesis?

--I think that I'll start a thread titled "Road Fatalities involving Bicycles," and use the same discussions used here to prove that roads kill bicyclists, and therefore we should work to remove roadways from our cities. I could post all the fatal accidents that happened on roads there, and we could discuss why that road killed the bicyclist. That way, we would reduce fatal accidents involving cars and bicycles, as the cars would not have anywhere to drive. Actually, I don't need to do that, as it is already obvious. So instead of removing bike lanes, lets simply push to remove roads from this country. If we did, we could keep about 40,000 people alive each year, as everyone knows that all these auto/truck/bicycle accidents happen on roads (or at least 99.95% of them) ;)

John

From the "Another Portland Fatality" thread:


What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?

What if a metor fell out of the sky and hit a cyclist in the bike lane...

Why do cars always drift right; actually, they don't. In 1976 I was a paramedic for the Eugene-Springfield Ambulance, and was working out of the Springfield location when we got a Code 3 alarm on the McKenzie Highway.

We went up as fast as we dared, but it took us almost 45 minutes to make it to the scene of the accident. There, we found a large American car had drifted over the center line, and hit a Volkswagen beetle head-on (two-lane road). In it, a mother and father were in their seats, dead. In the back, a two-year old was also dead. But a baby in a car seat survived. The driver of the large American car had been driving after working all night, fallen asleep, and drifted over the center line. He woke up after the crash, and was trapped in his car. We extricated him, and I plugged an IV into his arm, using an 18 gauge needle, and putting fluids into him quickly. We had to transport him and the newly-orphaned baby in the same ambulance.

When we got to the hospital, the first thing the ER doc did was to pull out my IV. He looked at the needle, and said, "Oh, I thought that was a 21 gauge needle." (Other paramedics will get this one, and I'll let you figure it out.) It took him about 8 pokes in both arms to re-establish that IV line in his arm, and you know what...I didn't care. This @#$% guy had just killed three people, wiped out a family.

Now, I'll tell you what. If a Volkswagen beetle in the lane failed to stop this guy, imagine thinking that a bicyclist would somehow be more conspicuous to this driver as he drifted off into oblivion. It could have been a Mac truck and the driver would not have seen it (actually, in my mind a log truck would have been preferable to the VW with a family; at least the driver would have been the one killed, and not the family).

So if it seems at times that I've got something behind my discussion of this concept of DLLP that Helmet Head keeps bringing up, I do...several dead people that I've attended to.

A couple of other points that have not come out in discussions.

--If a road turns a bit to the left, then the bicyclist in a bike lane is right in front of the driver, and the person riding in the lane is somewhat outside the driver's view forward. In these circumstances, wouldn't the bicyclist in the bicycle lane be more visible to the driver, if we accept the DLLP hypothesis?

--I think that I'll start a thread titled "Road Fatalities involving Bicycles," and use the same discussions used here to prove that roads kill bicyclists, and therefore we should work to remove roadways from our cities. I could post all the fatal accidents that happened on roads there, and we could discuss why that road killed the bicyclist. That way, we would reduce fatal accidents involving cars and bicycles, as the cars would not have anywhere to drive. Actually, I don't need to do that, as it is already obvious. So instead of removing bike lanes, lets simply push to remove roads from this country. If we did, we could keep about 40,000 people alive each year, as everyone knows that all these auto/truck/bicycle accidents happen on roads (or at least 99.95% of them) ;)

John


No one has suggested drivers always drift RIGHT; that they never drift left. That would be absurd, as is the bulk of your post that is based on the assumption that someone has suggested that.
If you accept and UNDERSTAND the DLLP hypothesis, then you would know that the hypothesis is based on the assumption that relevance depends on intended path (cognitive conspicuity) as well as line of sight (sensory cognitivity). Even on a slight left turn, the cyclist in the bike lane, while directly in the drivers line of sight, is still not in the driver's intended path, since the driver almost certainly intends on staying in the main traffic lane (if not encroaching into the oncoming lane), and not traveling in the adjacent bike lane, as he rounds the curve. So the cyclist is likely to be (not certainly) less relevant to the driver then he would be if he was further left. Having said that, since drivers tend to cut curves on the inside, a cyclist's risk to inadvertent drift on a left curve is probably even less than the already extremely low risk he is exposed to elsewhere.
If you need a study to prove that cyclists are more likely to die when riding on roads shared with cars than when riding on, say, mountain bike trails where they never encounter motor vehicles, you're in worse shape then I thought. If you think such a study would be analogous in any significant way to one that determines whether cyclists using SLLP (static lateral lane positioning) in bike lanes are more or less likely to get hit by same-direction traffic, then cyclists who use DLLP on the same roads, then you just don't get it. Anyway, the vast majority of roads in America do not have bike lanes, and yet most overtaking collisions of cyclists seem to be occuring to cyclists riding in bike lanes. Hmm...

What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?

What if a metor fell out of the sky and hit a cyclist in the bike lane...
That would be a tragedy. Are you suggesting that the random behavior of meteors is comparable to the behavior of drivers?

Note: The order of the posts are all screwed up because the system is currently stamping new posts with the wrong date/time (it's 5 hours early).

From the "Another Portland Fatality" thread:


When you look at all alcohol-related fatal bicycle crashes, it can happen whether in, or out, of a bike lane.

Ken Kifer was killed by a drunk coming from the opposite direction, on the opposite side of the road, when the driver swerved completely across the road to hit Ken. There was no bike lane, just a drunk driver who lost control of his vehicle.

If we mistakenly attribute this, or any other, alcohol-related cycling death to a bike lane or some other unrelated reason, we will miss the point of cracking down on driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, and others will pay the price.
What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?

Some people naturally drift to the center. My boyfriend is one of them. It bothers (more like frightens) me to no end.

From the "Another Portland Fatality" thread:


What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?In other words, there's no difference between a drunk driver, and all other drivers, who, according to your theory, all fail to notice the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane?

In other words, drunkeness is not a factor?

What if that Nigerian money transfer deposits to my bank account tonight? :lol:

What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?

In other words, there's no difference between a drunk driver, and all other drivers, who, according to your theory, all fail to notice the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane?

In other words, drunkeness is not a factor?

Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.

Does the fact that lights at night can help a cyclist be seen and not hit by drunk as well as sober drivers mean drunkeness is not a factor? Of course not.

Time to sharpen your logic knife. It's a bit dull.

Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, in what way is drunkeness a factor in not noticing the cyclist?


Does the fact that lights at night can help a cyclist be seen and not hit by drunk as well as sober drivers mean drunkeness is not a factor? Of course not.Wow. You really think that's analogous? Because it's not. Not even close.


Time to sharpen your logic knife. It's a bit dull.:lol:

You're so lacking in logic I can't take anything you say seriously. And I'm not the only one, in case your inattentional blindness has caused you to miss that fact...

If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, in what way is drunkeness a factor in not noticing the cyclist?
Because the drunk driver is more prone to inattentional blindness.


Wow. You really think that's analogous? Because it's not. Not even close.
Of course it is. Because the drunk driver is more prone to overlooking the cyclist whether he has lights or not.


You're so lacking in logic I can't take anything you say seriously. And I'm not the only one, in case your inattentional blindness has caused you to miss that fact...
The only ones who have shown a consistent understanding of logic in A&S lately are Galen and JoeJack, and I'm not saying that merely because they happen to agree with me much of the time. They agree with me much of the time because they can think and analyze logically.

Look at this sequence of posts between us. Your entire "argument" consists of empty assertions. No logic at all.

You contended (rhetorically, without any logical explanation): drunkeness is not a factor.

I explained (logically): Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.

You missed the point, and asserted (again rhetorically): "If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness" [then drunkeness is not a factor in not noticing the cyclist].

You're illogically and irrationally ignoring the role drunkenness plays in making someone more prone to not being attentive. And then you have the audacity to contend that I'm so lacking in logic that you can't take ME seriously? :lol:

Tell you what, I have work to do. I'll let one of the other logic-impaired denizens of A&S (aka anybody who disagrees with you) have at you tonight.

:lol:

Because the drunk driver is more prone to inattentional blindness.

No, a drunk driver isn't more prone to inattentional blindness...a drunk driver has a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement.


Of course it is. Because the drunk driver is more prone to overlooking the cyclist whether he has lights or not.

Actually, I learned in Driver's Ed years ago that drunk drivers tend to drift towards bright spots, but my teacher didn't have anything to back up that idea with.

I'm more inclined to believe that a drunk driver is more likely to avoid a very bright thing than to go towards a very bright thing (i.e. mechBgone cycling ;)).


The only ones who have shown a consistent understanding of logic in A&S lately are Galen and JoeJack, and I'm not saying that merely because they happen to agree with me much of the time. They agree with me much of the time because they can think and analyze logically.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Heck, a story I wrote in 2nd grade, while learning cursive, which was about a roadrunner eating a snake had more clout than what you just said.


Look at this sequence of posts between us. Your entire "argument" consists of empty assertions. No logic at all.

You = pot. Stop calling the kettle black. Especially when the kettle is a brightly lit and easily noticible entity off to the right side of the road.


You contended (rhetorically, without any logical explanation): drunkeness is not a factor.

I explained (logically): Not at all. The fact that overlooking the presence of a cyclist up ahead because he is in a bike lane CAN be a significant contributory factor in a crash whether the driver is sober or drunk does not mean drunkeness is not a factor.

Speaking of missing the point...oh, I'll wait. Go on, please.


You missed the point, and asserted (again rhetorically): "If the driver is sober and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness, and another driver is drunk and doesn't notice the cyclist because of inattentional blindness" [then drunkeness is not a factor in not noticing the cyclist].

You're illogically and irrationally ignoring the role drunkenness plays in making someone more prone to not being attentive. And then you have the audacity to contend that I'm so lacking in logic that you can't take ME seriously? :lol:

He was simply stating that inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers. Either way, a collision could kill ya.

What if in some significant percentage of alcohol-related cycling deaths, the factor of the drunk driver not noticing the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder was so significant, that use of DLLP in those collisions would have prevented the crash and fatality?
I'm with you in spirit, HH, but I can't justify the use of any special cycling technique (or separated bike lane, for that matter) that could mitigate the danger imposed by drunk driving on cyclists.

If you had some significant evidence to support your proposition that "DLLP" protects cyclists from drunk drivers (which I'm sure you can't at this stage, since as far as I am aware, "DLLP" is not widely adopted yet,) then we could talk.

But HH, I honestly support your efforts to make cycling safer and admire your courage to be vocal about what you believe is right. I'm not trying to patronize you by saying that. I don't reject the merits of "DLLP" outright, I am just not fully convinced, yet.

He was simply stating that inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers. Either way, a collision could kill ya.
Yes, inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers.

But, because, as you say, drunk drivers have a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement, don't you think they are significantly more prone to inattentional blindness?

In fact, I recently heard a couple talk about how in the old days whenever they were driving home from a party after drinking, he would request that she not talk to him, because he needed to especially minimize all distractions when driving drunk.

The point is, a drunk driver is particularly likely to overlook a cyclist up ahead who is off to the side out of his path, and more likely to overlook such a cyclist than to overlook a cyclist up ahead in his intended path.

Remember, even the vast majority of drunk drivers pay enough attention to where they are going to get home without incident.

It's about likelihoods and improving odds, not absolutes.

Yes, inattentional blindness can happen to both drunk and sober drivers.

But, because, as you say, drunk drivers have a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement, don't you think they are significantly more prone to inattentional blindness?

No one said they weren't.

But, because, as you say, drunk drivers have a lack of depth perception, time, space, and judgement, don't you think they are significantly more prone to inattentional blindness?

No one said they weren't.

Then I misunderstood. What did you mean in #193 when you wrote:



No, a drunk driver isn't more prone to inattentional blindness...


I interpreted that to mean that you were saying drunk drivers are not more prone to inattentional blindness.

Good job on removing context!

Basically, I was stating that the drunk driver is just as prone to "inattentional blindness" (which, by the way, isn't a real term) the sober driver. What makes them more dangerous are slowed reflexes, lack of depth perception, lack of good judgement, etc.

Good job on removing context!
Removing context? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, despite the apparent contradictions.


Basically, I was stating that the drunk driver is just as prone to "inattentional blindness" (which, by the way, isn't a real term) the sober driver. What makes them more dangerous are slowed reflexes, lack of depth perception, lack of good judgement, etc.
Right. Inattentional blindness is not a real term and is not influenced by drinking alcohol. Is everyone just playing stupid today?


Blind Drunk: The Effects of Alcohol on Inattentional Blindness

SEEMA L. CLIFASEFI, MELANIE K. T. TAKARANGI and
JONAH S. BERGMAN

University of Washington, USA

Victoria University of Wellington, NewZealand
SUMMARY
Alcohol consumption is a major contributor to road accidents. While it is likely that perceptual
processing deficits contribute to poorer driving performance among intoxicated individuals, we know
little about alcohol’s role in particular perceptual processes. For instance, we know that even sober
individuals can fail to detect unexpected salient objects that appear in their visual fields, a
phenomenon known as inattentional blindness (IB; Mack & Rock, 1998). We were interested in
whether these visual errors become more or less likely when subjects are under the influence of
alcohol or just think that they are drunk. We told half our subjects that they had received alcohol,
and half that they had received a placebo. This information was either true or false. Intoxicated
subjects (regardless of what they were told) were more likely to show ‘blindness’ to an unexpected
object in their visual field. This finding has practical implications for human performance issues
such as driving and eyewitness memory, and theoretical implications for visual cognition.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


http://http://www.arrivealive.co.za/documents/blinddrunk.pdf

Basically, I was stating that the drunk driver is just as prone to "inattentional blindness" (which, by the way, isn't a real term) the sober driver.


Alcohol

Inattentional blindness more likely under influence of alcohol
By Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology
Jun 30, 2006, 13:06

The study showed that subjects who were mildly intoxicated (at half the legal intoxication limit in the US) were heavily compromised in their ability to notice an unexpected visual object when they were focused on another simple task.

The phenomenon, known as 'Inattentional blindness' – where unexpected, yet salient objects appear in the visual fields but fail to be detected while subjects are focused on another task– has been demonstrated under various conditions, but this is the first instance to show that these visual errors become even more likely under the influence of alcohol.

The experiment involved giving subjects 10 minutes to consume beverages which, unbeknownst to them either contained alcohol or did not. The subjects then watched 25 seconds of a video clip showing two teams of three people playing with a ball and were instructed to count the ball passes. Part way through the video clip, an individual dressed in a gorilla suit appeared on the screen, walked directly through the players, beat its chest and then walked away.. Subjects who were mildly intoxicated were twice as likely to miss seeing the gorilla, even though it had screen time of over a third of the video.

Although the research did not directly test driving aptitude, the implications for driving could be serious. "We rely on our ability to perceive a multitude of information when we drive (speed limit, road signs, other cars, etc.) If even a mild dose of alcohol compromises our ability to take in some of this information, in other words, limits our attention span, then it seems likely that our driving ability may also be compromised." Says study lead author Dr. Seema Clifasefi of the University of Washington.

"If you've had one drink, you may be so focused on paying attention to your speed so as not to get pulled over, that you completely miss seeing the pedestrian that walks directly in front of your car."

All rights reserved by www.rxpgnews.com

http://www.rxpgnews.com/article_4592.shtml