Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

And if a bike lane did not exist, then would the accident have been prevented?
No way to know. The removal of one contributory factor among others does not mean the crash would necessarily have been prevented. All we can say is that the crash would have been less likely to occur, to some unknown degree. I believe the magnitude of that degree to be significant. Reasonable people may disagree.


I fully understand the issues you present, and I also understand that much of what a cyclist has to do to avoid accidents with motor vehicles has a lot to do with compensating for the lack of good driving habits by motorists.
No. At least in this case it's compensating for normal expected behavior given the circumstances, not "lack of good driving habits". But "compensating for the lack of good driving habits by motorists" is a good habit too, though not relevant in this case.



Speeding up to pass a cyclist and then making a sharp turn is a bad habit portrayed by motorists that feel they must pass a bicycle at all costs... a bad habit by motorists who are not willing to truly share the road.
There is no evidence that the motorist actually sped up to pass the cyclist.

I was driven to lunch yesterday by a colleague who avoided entering even empty dashed bike lanes at all right turns, in a state where doing so is required by law. Is this a "bad habit" on the part of this particular motorist, or is it typical expected normal driver behavior? Isn't it really a "bad habit" on the part of traffic engineers who paint bike lane stripes all the way up to intersections despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers, even police officers, naturally and rationally avoid entering delineated road space that is too narrow for a car to fit?

Even on this forum despite all my pontificating very few (including even you apparently) can seem to apply this understanding to real world situations.

Classic.

FWIW, Shakespeare once noted that "brevity is the soul of wit".

The thing about bike lanes is they inhibit the cyclist from taking a ceterish position at intersection and driveways, especially in an urban setting where there might be a driveway every few yards.

I don't find that they "inhibit" me in any such fashion.

I'll use BL's when they're present (and appreciate them for the space they allow me), and move out of them whenever it's in my interest to do so. I think most experienced cyclists do the same.

I was driven to lunch yesterday by a colleague who avoided entering even empty dashed bike lanes at all right turns, in a state where doing so is required by law. Is this a "bad habit" on the part of this particular motorist, or is it typical expected normal driver behavior? Isn't it really a "bad habit" on the part of traffic engineers who paint bike lane stripes all the way up to intersections despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers, even police officers, naturally and rationally avoid entering delineated road space that is too narrow for a car to fit?


If you were driven to lunch in this city, then the bike lanes were dashed before the major intersections, and your colleague doesn't understand the dashing that is seen on EVERY merge ramp in this state... that is a limitation of your colleague's driving knowlege, and should be rectified.

As far as bad behaviour being accepted as normal behaviour... yes in that, you are correct... however, just like bad behaviour in a child, it should not be tolerated in adult motorists either.

Just as I suspected. HH bumps his bike lane deaths thread any time anybody posts anything regarding bike lanes and accidents.

Motorists simply do not know how to drive. It makes no difference whether you're discussing bike lanes or merging on the freeway, they just don't know how to do it. Nor do they know how to drive 25 in a school zone or use turn signals or stop at stop signs. It's as simple as that. Nothing to do with bike lanes or "expected behavior" or whatever. It's just ignorance run rampant.

In this one the cyclist was on the shoulder, not in a bike lane.
Also, it's not a death, but close enough.


he was cycling on the shoulder...
...
Then an SUV slammed into him.
...
he’s hopeful that a new bill requiring motorists to give bicycle riders a
three-foot safety buffer when passing them from behind may help others
avoid his pain.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=265283

http://www.oregonnews.com/article/20070130/NEWS/70130003

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1170123555296440.xml&storylist=orlocal

yeah, yeah, mr super cyclist. its almost as if helmet wants riders to die in bike lanes..... "not a death, but close enough?" DESPICABLE! dude wasn't even in the bike lane, nor did he persish.

And the list keeps growing....

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278410

See my thread regarding "tragedy in Solana Beach." Yes, this is yet another inadvertent drift into the bike lane, but it also appears to be a DWI.

And the list keeps growing....

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278410
Makes your day, doesn't it?:rolleyes: Maybe this will be a good day for ghouls and you can Google up another DWI victim before the sun sets.:mad:

Makes your day, doesn't it?:rolleyes: Maybe this will be a good day for ghouls and you can Google up another DWI victim before the sun sets.:mad:

Nobody is happy about it. I guess you would prefer that she got hit and killed on the open road?:mad:

Motorist distracted by a bee veers into bike lane and kills cyclist.
Is it a coincidence that he veered into the bike lane instead of the adjacent traffic lane?
Or, because of the bike lane stripe arguably making the cyclist's presence irrelevant to the motorist, was the motorist inattentionally blind to the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane as he was approaching from behind, and, so, he veered into what he thought was an empty bike lane?

Article:
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/7806087.html

Main thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=305593

^^yeah, sure, it's the bike lane's fault.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

^^yeah, sure, it's just another cowinky-dink.

Maybe he was distracted by a bee and veered his car - maybe he hit his steering wheel and accidentally went right rather then left - do you wear a foil hat at night when you sleep?

What should the cyclist have done to prevent his death, HH?

What should the cyclist have done to prevent his death, HH?

Oooh-oooh! I know!!

As everyone knows, "the cyclist should have been riding centered in the lane".

From this position, the cyclist could have distracted the bee, thus preventing it from flying into the overtaking driver's window in the first place.

And even if the bee was still determined to fly into the motorist's window, by riding in the middle of the road, the panicking driver would have careened harmlessly to the right of the cyclist.

Either way, it clearly illustrates that the cyclist was ultimately at fault, and was thus responsible for his own demise. :rolleyes:

^^yeah, sure, it's just another cowinky-dink.

Sometimes, Professor Freud, a cigar is just a smoke.

What should the cyclist have done to prevent his death, HH? Who knows?

But I do believe his chances of not getting hit would have been better had he been riding in the traffic lane up ahead as the motorist was approaching, thus making his presence more likely to be noticed, before moving into the bike lane. Then, while the driver was distracted by the bee, he might have been at least as concerned about staying out of the bike lane as he was probably concerned about staying out of the adjacent traffic lane.

Let me put my point in terms of these questions:

1) Do you think the motorist was aware of the cyclist's presence in the bike lane moments before he was distracted by the bee?

2) Assuming the motorist was aware of the cyclist's presence in the bike lane moments before he was distracted by the bee, do you think he instantly became unaware of the cyclist and, so, forget he was there when he swerved into him, or do you think he swerved out of control and was just as likely to have swerved the other way?

3) Assuming the motorist was not aware of the cyclist's presence in the bike lane moments before he was distracted by the bee, what do you think the cyclist could have done, if anything, to significantly increase the chances of the motorist being aware of him, and, would riding up ahead in his path probably have accomplished that?

Don’t you get it? The government paid money to study how bees fly, how to genetically manipulate bees and the effectiveness of bike lanes. If this doesn’t prove that there is a Government Conspiracy and they are out to get us I don’t know what will.

Paid for by the Illuminati Society

Either way, it clearly illustrates that the cyclist was ultimately at fault, and was thus responsible for his own demise. :rolleyes:
no, no, no, you haven't learned anything! It was the bike lane's fault!!!

:rolleyes:

no, no, no, you haven't learned anything! It was the bike lane's fault!!!

:rolleyes:


Probably a case of "shared liability" between the cyclist and the bike lane. :rolleyes:

FWIW, given that the driver was a 17 year old, and he was accompanied by his 18 year old girlfriend, I doubt there was any bee involved at all. The bee was probably manufactured for the accident report, because the kid was too freaked out to tell the truth - that he'd been groping his girlfriend, or just screwing around and not paying attention. That's one reason why many states now have restrictions on kids driving around with kids.

that guy shouldn't have been on the road or in the bike lane at all. he should have been on the sidewalk, where it's safe.

Questions....
I don't know. I wasn't there.

However, I do know that a sudden out-of-control swerve is plausible. See here:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-05252007-1352640.html

The driver was likely not "unaware" of the presence of other cars on the road in the story I linked to.

Centerish lane position is just one technique. It may or may not have had any use in this situation.

Centerish lane position is just one technique. It may or may not have had any use in this situation. Exactly.

Say someone came up to in an alley with a gun pointing at your head and made the following offer: "I will shoot you in the head, OR, I will let you toss a coin and if it comes up heads I won't shoot you and will leave".

Do you agree to toss the coin, even though doing it "may or may not have had any use in this situation"?

The two choices are:

a) Ride in the bike lane.
b) Ride centerish, move into the bike lane only when fsdt is present or approaching.

To me, (a) is analogous to refusing to toss the coin, and (b) is at least giving it a chance.

The difference is that inadvertent drift/swerve is so unlikely in the first place that doing (a) or (b) will almost certainly not make any difference in any given situation.

However, if you ride for years and years and thousands and thousands of miles, your chances of encountering a driver approaching from behind who is about to be distracted by something increase with time and miles. It seems to me riding in a manner that increases the likelihood of such a driver to be aware of you presence before he gets distracted only has a plus side. More importantly, riding centerish makes it less likely that you'll overlook a potential cross traffic conflict up ahead, which is more likely to cause a crash than are threats from behind.

Exactly.

Say someone came up to in an alley with a gun pointing at your head and made the following offer: "I will shoot you in the head, OR, I will let you toss a coin and if it comes up heads I won't shoot you and will leave".

Do you agree to toss the coin, even though doing it "may or may not have had any use in this situation"?

The two choices are:

a) Ride in the bike lane.
b) Ride centerish, move into the bike lane only when fsdt is present or approaching.

To me, (a) is analogous to refusing to toss the coin, and (b) is at least giving it a chance.

The difference is that inadvertent drift/swerve is so unlikely in the first place that doing (a) or (b) will almost certainly not make any difference in any given situation.

However, if you ride for years and years and thousands and thousands of miles, your chances of encountering a driver approaching from behind who is about to be distracted by something increase with time and miles. It seems to me riding in a manner that increases the likelihood of such a driver to be aware of you presence before he gets distracted only has a plus side. More importantly, riding centerish makes it less likely that you'll overlook a potential cross traffic conflict up ahead, which is more likely to cause a crash than are threats from behind.

Or, you could get distracted yourself while riding in the middle of the road, hit a pothole, fall down, and then get run over by fsdt.

What a ludicrous argument...not to mention a shallow and ridiculous analogy.

it didn't take serge long to recover from his smack down, did it?

it didn't take serge long to recover from his smack down, did it?

I've been staying out of A&S because it's just gotten so tedious, lengthy, and "all about HH" and his apparently insatiable need for control and attention.

Do you have a link to the smack down thread?

Say someone came up to in an alley with a gun pointing at your head and made the following offer: "I will shoot you in the head, OR, I will let you toss a coin and if it comes up heads I won't shoot you and will leave".
I don't accept false dichotomies from gun-wielding strangers in alleys, so I'm certainly don't accept one from you. The best course of action is to know which streets/alleys to avoid at what times, not obliviously enter an alley and accept a game of Russian roulette. But let me know how that works out for you, ok?

Or, you could get distracted yourself while riding in the middle of the road, hit a pothole, fall down, and then get run over by fsdt.

Anything can happen. The issue is how likely is it to happen.

Has anyone ever hit a pothole fallen down and then was run over? On average, how many per year? How about inadvertent drift into bike lanes or shoulders? My sense is it's less than one, and dozens, respectively.

I don't accept false dichotomies from gun-wielding strangers in alleys, so I'm certainly don't accept one from you. The best course of action is to know which streets/alleys to avoid at what times, not obliviously enter an alley and accept a game of Russian roulette. But let me know how that works out for you, ok?
:rolleyes:

Fine, ignore the whole point.

I've been staying out of A&S because it's just gotten so tedious, lengthy, and "all about HH" and his apparently insatiable need for control and attention.

Do you have a link to the smack down thread?

smack down starts here:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4558810&postcount=298

Fine, ignore the whole point.
Your point has no basis in reality. Riding in a bike lane is not a recipe for certain death in the case of a guy panicking over a bee. And riding centerish is not necessarily a recipe for improvement.

Heck, it could have been worse. Maybe he rides centerish, the car swerves into oncoming traffic, and the cyclist gets killed along with a couple more people. It happens (see the article I pointed to last)

Who knows, right?

Of course, Rando's method would be the most likely to avoid the freak accident. What do you think? If a stranger in an alley points a gun at your head and says that you can either 1) play a round of poker with him, and if you lose, he will shoot you, and if you win, he will merely expose himself and let you go, or 2)tweak your nipples saucily through your shirt and go free, which will you choose?

Your point has no basis in reality. Riding in a bike lane is not a recipe for certain death in the case of a guy panicking over a bee. And riding centerish is not necessarily a recipe for improvement. My point is not that riding in a bike lane is a recipe for certain death in the case of a guy panicking over a bee.
Nor is my point that riding centerish is necessarily a recipe for improvement.

Very lame, Zey, I expect better from you.


Heck, it could have been worse. Maybe he rides centerish, the car swerves into oncoming traffic, and the cyclist gets killed along with a couple more people. It happens (see the article I pointed to last)

Who knows, right? Indeed it is an issue of probabilities. Even though wearing a seat belt could result in causing a drowning (if you happen to flip over into a water filled pond or ditch and the buckle is jammed shut such that it can't open), I never-the-less wear my seatbelt? Why, same reason I ride centerish: I believe the odds are much higher that I will encounter a situation where the seat belt and centerish position are helpful than a situation where they are harmful.

My point is not that riding in a bike lane is a recipe for certain death in the case of a guy panicking over a bee.
Nor is my point that riding centerish is necessarily a recipe for improvement.
So what is the point of you "alley dillema"? How is it consistent with reality?


Even though wearing a seat belt could result in causing a drowning (if you happen to flip over into a water filled pond or ditch and the buckle is jammed shut such that it can't open), I never-the-less wear my seatbelt? Why, same reason I ride centerish: I believe the odds are much higher that I will encounter a situation where the seat belt and centerish position are helpful than a situation where they are harmful.
The big difference between the two examples is that much hard data shows the great improvement of survival odds with seatbelts over none. I am not aware of any thorough data comparing riding vehicularly in a bike lane to defaulting centerish in terms of accident or fatality prevention.

I'm so sorry to disappoint you. But you need to establish that there actually is a man in the alley before your point will work.

btw, what choice will you take in the situation I outlined in post 434?

Anything can happen. The issue is how likely is it to happen.

Has anyone ever hit a pothole fallen down and then was run over? On average, how many per year? How about inadvertent drift into bike lanes or shoulders? My sense is it's less than one, and dozens, respectively.

If that is the case, expressing much concern about either possibility is unreasonable.

R.

If that is the case, expressing much concern about either possibility is unreasonable.

R.
Bingo! A winner!

I fully agree. My point is it's more unreasonable to express concern about getting hit from behind while riding centerish than being hit while riding in a bike lane by inadvertent drift.

So what matters is what is in front of you, and for reducing your odds of getting hit with respect to what's ahead, which is worth expressing at least some concern about, riding centerish wins hands down over riding in the margins (be it in the bike lane, shoulder or even right side of a WOL).

Being centerish improves sight lines to and from you, gives you improved buffer space to the right, and makes you more conspicuous.

The only reason to not ride centerish when fsdt is not present or approaching is unreasonable expression of concern for traffic behind you, or not feeling it's worth it to move aside for faster traffic and back again during gaps.

Bingo! A winner!

I fully agree. My point is it's more unreasonable to express concern about getting hit from behind while riding centerish than being hit while riding in a bike lane by inadvertent drift.

So what matters is what is in front of you, and for reducing your odds of getting hit with respect to what's ahead, which is worth expressing at least some concern about, riding centerish wins hands down over riding in the margins (be it in the bike lane, shoulder or even right side of a WOL).

Being centerish improves sight lines to and from you, gives you improved buffer space to the right, and makes you more conspicuous.

The only reason to not ride centerish when fsdt is not present or approaching is unreasonable expression of concern for traffic behind you, or not feeling it's worth it to move aside for faster traffic and back again during gaps.

Of course your centerish stance and the safety involved are derived from the studies and data of the '70s.

I still contend that cell phones and other distractions have "changed the mix" since then... and auto accident data DOES show that rear end collisions are the majority type.

Since so few cyclists readily ride centerish... we have no supporting data to show that centerish is either more or less safer than riding right biased.

I do however agree with your contention of greater visibility both seeing and being seen.

My point being that your point:
My point is it's more unreasonable to express concern about getting hit from behind... may be invalid... but we have no data to support either contention.

Bingo! A winner!

I fully agree. My point is it's more unreasonable to express concern about getting hit from behind while riding centerish than being hit while riding in a bike lane by inadvertent drift.

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?

Did you see the video of the Loch Ness Monster, btw? Weird, wild, stuff. A friend of mine once had a brilliant idea -- start collecting donations for a Bigfoot Preserve.

There is no foundation, other than your own emotional response, for your claim that it is more reasonable to express concern for one possibility rather than the other.


So what matters is what is in front of you, and for reducing your odds of getting hit with respect to what's ahead, which is worth expressing at least some concern about, riding centerish wins hands down over riding in the margins (be it in the bike lane, shoulder or even right side of a WOL).

Being centerish improves sight lines to and from you, gives you improved buffer space to the right, and makes you more conspicuous.

The only reason to not ride centerish when fsdt is not present or approaching is unreasonable expression of concern for traffic behind you, or not feeling it's worth it to move aside for faster traffic and back again during gaps.

True. But this is primarily a strategy for urban traffic, and becomes far less important in the outlying areas, and even less on rural roads.

Robert

Don’t you get it? The government paid money to study how bees fly, how to genetically manipulate bees and the effectiveness of bike lanes. If this doesn’t prove that there is a Government Conspiracy and they are out to get us I don’t know what will.

Paid for by the Illuminati Society
And believed by VC addled Loony Tunes!

it didn't take serge long to recover from his smack down, did it?
I used to have a Joe Palooka Bop Bag. He always snapped back for more smack downs. Just as clever, too.

Exactly.

Say someone came up to in an alley with a gun pointing at your head and made the following offer: "I will shoot you in the head, OR, I will let you toss a coin and if it comes up heads I won't shoot you and will leave".

Do you agree to toss the coin, even though doing it "may or may not have had any use in this situation"?

The two choices are:

a) Ride in the bike lane.
b) Ride centerish, move into the bike lane only when fsdt is present or approaching.

To me, (a) is analogous to refusing to toss the coin, and (b) is at least giving it a chance.

The difference is that inadvertent drift/swerve is so unlikely in the first place that doing (a) or (b) will almost certainly not make any difference in any given situation.

However, if you ride for years and years and thousands and thousands of miles, your chances of encountering a driver approaching from behind who is about to be distracted by something increase with time and miles. It seems to me riding in a manner that increases the likelihood of such a driver to be aware of you presence before he gets distracted only has a plus side. More importantly, riding centerish makes it less likely that you'll overlook a potential cross traffic conflict up ahead, which is more likely to cause a crash than are threats from behind.
HH,

I thought you told me to stay in the bike lane during my tests. Now you say to be out, until the fsdt appears, when presumably you would move back into the bike lane. But when the fsdt is pretty constant, wouldn't that mean that you would stay in the bike lane? If so, then again, why is this consistant with your past advice about a bicycle fatality, where you said that the bike lane was a death trap, and you should stay out in the center of the lane all the time. Consistancy???

John

Now, also why don't you equally track those fatal bike accidents which do not occure in bike lanes, or even on roads with bike lanes. I've seen plenty of those in Oregon.

By the way, I've noticed that this thread, which started some years ago, was imported into the Vehicular Cycling forum from the Advocacy forum.

John

it didn't take serge long to recover from his smack down, did it?

SI is like poison Ivy man, if you don't throughly get rid of it, .... you better watch the hell out!

HH,

I thought you told me to stay in the bike lane during my tests. Now you say to be out, until the fsdt appears, when presumably you would move back into the bike lane.
Whether you were in or out doesn't matter while fsdt is not present. When fsdt is present, and it's safe and reasonable to be in the bike lane, that's where you should be if you are riding vehicularly. When I told you you should have been in the bike lane during the test, that was in the context of fsdt being present (they were honking at you). Same consistent principle/rule in all cases.


But when the fsdt is pretty constant, wouldn't that mean that you would stay in the bike lane?
Yes, if the gaps are not sufficiently long, then you stay in the bike lane (as long as it is safe and reasonable to do so - if it's not, then you need to use negotiation to establish ROW to move out).


If so, then again, why is this consistant with your past advice about a bicycle fatality, where you said that the bike lane was a death trap, and you should stay out in the center of the lane all the time. Consistancy???
I never said anyone should "should stay out in the center of the lane all the time.".
I have always recommended strongly considering being out of the bike lane any time fsdt is not present (which was apparently the case in that Oregon fatality - evidence: the gap was big enough for oncoming traffic to turn left "slowly", and there were no witnesses from same direction traffic). And even when fsdt is present, you should be out of the bike lane when it's not safe and reasonable to be in the bike lane, which was almost certainly the case in the Oregon fatality considering the cyclist was approaching a junction, was in the shade, sun behind him, and there was oncoming traffic that could and might (and did) turn left in front of him.

What's inconsistent? Seriously.

I never said anyone should "should stay out in the center of the lane all the time.".
I have always recommended strongly considering being out of the bike lane any time fsdt is not present (which was apparently the case in that Oregon fatality - evidence: the gap was big enough for oncoming traffic to turn left "slowly", and there were no witnesses from same direction traffic). And even when fsdt is present, you should be out of the bike lane when it's not safe and reasonable to be in the bike lane, which was almost certainly the case in the Oregon fatality considering the cyclist was approaching a junction, was in the shade, sun behind him, and there was oncoming traffic that could and might (and did) turn left in front of him.

What's inconsistent? Seriously.


Is John confusing "default position" as "all the time?"

The default positon as centered only occurs in the absence of fsdt.

Is John confusing "default position" as "all the time?"

The default positon as centered only occurs in the absence of fsdt.
I have no idea what is confusing him.

The only reason to not ride centerish when fsdt is not present or approaching is unreasonable expression of concern for traffic behind you, or not feeling it's worth it to move aside for faster traffic and back again during gaps.
Is the second example the same as your reason for not riding centerish when fsdt is not present on KV road, for example?

Is the second example the same as your reason for not riding centerish when fsdt is not present on KV road, for example?
That plus the utter dearth of any side activity whatsoever, combined with excellent side visibility and huge shoulders (thus there is no signficant value to moving left in terms of increasing right side buffer space).