Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

This is a thread to catalog bike lane deaths caused by drivers inadverdently drifting into cyclists riding in bike lanes.

I'll start with this one:

Michelle Mazzei, October 2, 2005, Woodside, CA

Forum discussion:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=143982

Article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/04/BAGVPF26H71.DTL

"The driver told police that his attention had been diverted as he tried to read a roadway sign, and his car drifted into the bicycle lane, hitting Mazzei. She was taken to Stanford Hospital, where she died of her injuries, Williams said."

----------------------------------------------------

I see people drifting into the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Hell, I've seen 1 or 2 driving IN the wider style bike lanes and not to get around traffic either, I only assume they are from out of town and have never seen road where bikes lane is as wide enough to easily fit cars.

How about the latest couple of deaths mentioned here... seems like two of them involved BL and overtaking accidents... such as the Kearny Villa incident.

This was a really sad accident. There are a lot of cyclists going through the Woodside area so this will hit home for a lot of people. What's so sad is this happened on a wide thoroughfare at 11 am, and it's not like the driver was looking at a map in the car. He was looking at signs on the road. I think a lot of it might have to do with the age of the driver (68). I remember reading about a recent one on U.S. 1 a few weeks ago. Here's a statistic to mull over:


The death rate per driven mile is more than 35 times higher for motorcycles than it is for cars. The per-mile death rate is also higher for bicyclists. Two-thirds of bicycle fatalities occur due to traffic violations and 90% involve collisions with motor vehicles.

from http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

I don't think the fact that the victim was riding in a 'bike lane' had much to do with it. She could have just as easily been riding on the shoulder, not a 'bike lane' per say.

The old guy that hit her was not watching where he was going plain and simple. You could be standing in your front yard and get hit by some motorist who's not watching where they are going...

This is a thread to catalog bike lane deaths caused by drivers inadverdently drifting into cyclists riding in bike lanes.

I'll start with this one:

Michelle Mazzei, October 2, 2005, Woodside, CA

Pretty low of you to use a death like this as a tool in your personal vendetta. Of course, we all know you would have completely ignored this news item had the death occured on a WOL or normal lane with all other details identical.

People drift into adjacent lanes intended for cars just as often as they drift into lanes intended for bicycles. Ask any motorcyclist.

- Warren

Next, I think you should create a thread re: cars that hit cyclists who weren't in bike lanes. That would keep you busy.

This is a thread to catalog bike lane deaths caused by drivers inadverdently drifting into cyclists riding in bike lanes.Engaging in a little fear-mongering, are we Serge?

Are you going to start another thread to catalog deaths caused by motorists running over cyclists from behind - cyclist who are practicing the priciples of VC, or is your fear-mongering going to be limited to bike lanes?

Or do you just not think you can exploit those deaths for your political purposes?

You're a hypocrite, and that's the good thing I'm thinking about you right now.

You have confirmed my low opinion of some bike lane opponents. You, sir, are despicable.

Pretty low of you to use a death like this as a tool in your personal vendetta. Of course, we all know you would have completely ignored this news item had the death occured on a WOL or normal lane with all other details identical.


Ill secound that. I was reading up on the vc stuff linked in hhs sig. Its frightening. Much of whats in there would get me killed on jhonson road. And increase my number of to close for comfort call on many roads. Turning many of them in to near misses in fact. Drivers here tend to pass as close as they possibly can no matter where you ride in your lane. I was ridieng 2 foot right of the center line and had a driver tare by me on the right just yesterday. I was riding a few days ago in the dead center of the lane (aka greese strip) Had a car behind me first go left to try and pass me on the right then rappidly swervedaround me to my left barly missing taking out my back wheel The safest thing for me i found is when slower moving cars are behind me is to act a little iratic. They tend to give me more room this way. Or if they are a motorist whos staying behind me even when its fairly safe to pass they wait until theres plenty of room. Or ill turn a little left then over to the right and wave them by. They mostly get the idea that im trying to say give me this much room and pass me. Ive had many a friendly wave head nod or horn tap as they pass.

Thread killer...

Beer Biscuits

One 12 oz Beer
3 cups Biscuit Mix
2 tbs Sugar
*** Mix all ingredients and cut and bake @ 375F till brown.

Yield: 6 Biscuits

Bike lanes are white paint stripes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I really don't see how a stripe of white paint can effectively protect us from cagers -- erratic, distracted, drunk or otherwise. If stripes are ineffective, what sense does it make to spend millions of dollars painting them on the pavement?

Spend those millions to give every cyclist a helmet, a blinkie and a LED headlight, and you might make a dent in the accident rate.

Of course, cycling is pretty safe anyway. Stripes or not, helmet or not, and lights or not.

It's not the bike lane per se that's the problem, it's cyclo-segregationism. While I do believe a cyclist riding up ahead off to the side in a WOL is perhaps a bit more likely to be noticed than one separated by a BL stripe, there is certainly no guarantee. The solution to making drivers aware of us - regardless of whether there is a BL stripe or not - is to use a "more centralish" default (per Robert Hurst) primary riding position (per John Franklin), along with a mirror, and only moving aside specifically to allow faster traffic to pass, when safe and reasonable to do so, or if there is no indication that they are aware of us and they are within 4-5 seconds of hitting us. A last second "ditch" like that is what I call "Plan B" - and so far (knocks on wood) I've never had to use it.

Bike lanes are white paint stripes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I really don't see how a stripe of white paint can effectively protect us from cagers -- erratic, distracted, drunk or otherwise. If stripes are ineffective, what sense does it make to spend millions of dollars painting them on the pavement?



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

Gene - all stripes do is simply facilitate faster travel, that's all. And that goes for BL stripes - it facilitiates faster passing of cyclists by motorists, as well as faster passing of stopped motorists by cyclists, neither of which makes anything safer for cyclists, and arguably makes things more dangerous.

It's not the bike lane per se that's the problem, it's cyclo-segregationism...Rubbish. No matter how many times you say it, it's still rubbish. No matter how many times you use spectre of "Whites only", it's still offensive and it's still ridiculous. Maybe you should stay on topic and see if there are any other cyclists deaths you can exploit in this thread and save the Jim Crow anology for every other thread in this forum.

Gene - all stripes do is simply facilitate faster travel, that's all. And that goes for BL stripes - it facilitiates faster passing of cyclists by motorists, as well as faster passing of stopped motorists by cyclists, neither of which makes anything safer for cyclists, and arguably makes things more dangerous.


OK, getting theoretical here because that is where the traffic engineers dwell (or at least it seems that way sometimes). Supposing that Bike Lanes had no debris, and were smooth and well designed, What would be wrong with traffic flowing smoothly past a cyclist who also is riding along un-obstructed? How is that more dangerous? What we are describing here is a slow moving vehicle lane dedicated for bicycle use. If they worked as designed how would they be arguably more dangerous? Once we establish this we can talk about shortcomings. When motorists can pass me with less worry then I get less harassment and that makes greater safety in my mind. Not that I don't ride roads without bike lanes but just having a little trouble getting your logic here as far as well designed bike lanes making things more dangerous. Now ill designed bike lanes is another story but it seems like we are dealing in generalities here so lets assume a utopian bike lane.

This is a thread to catalog bike lane deaths caused by drivers inadverdently drifting into cyclists riding in bike lanes.

I'll start with this one:

Michelle Mazzei, October 2, 2005, Woodside, CA

Forum discussion:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=143982

Article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/04/BAGVPF26H71.DTL

"The driver told police that his attention had been diverted as he tried to read a roadway sign, and his car drifted into the bicycle lane, hitting Mazzei. She was taken to Stanford Hospital, where she died of her injuries, Williams said."

----------------------------------------------------

would the bike rider be any LESS dead if she was riding in the center of a "regular" lane and the driver's attention had been diverted to read a sign causing him to to just plow into the rider? probably not. Given that the driver was not paying attention to what was in front of him, it's also possible that he may have hit a Ped in a crosswalk...are crosswalks bad for peds, too?

It's not the bike lane per se that's the problem, it's cyclo-segregationism.

Sounds good to me. My bike weighs 27 pounds. A car weighs 2700 pounds. The more segregated I am from them the better.

Gee you are absolutly right... we should just erase ALL those nasty stripes all over all roads... just too much darn maintenance... who needs 'em, who uses 'em anyway. Too darn restrictive. Hiways don't need 'em either. Why should anybody have to try to stay between the lines anyway. :rolleyes:
Your sarcasm is totally misplaced. You are actually describing the newest concept of road design. This has already been tried in several countries. There are no lane markers, stripes or signs of any kind. There are no separate facilities (sidewalks) for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. The idea is that everybody (all traffic) will have to slow down and figure out how to navigate the road.

I am being totally serious. Unfortunately, I am on a short work break and do not have time to find and post links. But, I swear, this is the new wave in traffic engineering.

Your sarcasm is totally misplaced. You are actually describing the newest concept of road design. This has already been tried in several countries. There are no lane markers, stripes or signs of any kind. There are no separate facilities (sidewalks) for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. The idea is that everybody (all traffic) will have to slow down and figure out how to navigate the road.

I am being totally serious. Unfortunately, I am on a short work break and do not have time to find and post links. But, I swear, this is the new wave in traffic engineering.
Be sure to post the links that indicate how many, (i.e. more than one isolated carefully selected spot?) and in what type of locations, this new wave in traffic engineering has been implemented. Especially illuminating would be measured user response.

Your sarcasm is totally misplaced. You are actually describing the newest concept of road design. This has already been tried in several countries. There are no lane markers, stripes or signs of any kind. There are no separate facilities (sidewalks) for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. The idea is that everybody (all traffic) will have to slow down and figure out how to navigate the road.

I am being totally serious. Unfortunately, I am on a short work break and do not have time to find and post links. But, I swear, this is the new wave in traffic engineering.

Oh I believe you... I just doubt it will work well here with the wide boulevards that connect our "urban villages."

Will be interesting.

She must have been riding her brakes, or he was speeding, since a cyclist can usually do the speed limit by just coasting down the hill at this location. Since she was still in the bike lane, she must have been coming up tot he intersection. It's best to leave the bike lane a bit early there as you come to the stop light, to go straight through.
Remember the short film of the gorilla appearing in the middle of the basketball players passing the ball around. The gorilla wasn't off to the side, it was right in the middle of them, and people STILL missed seeing the gorilla.

OK, getting theoretical here because that is where the traffic engineers dwell (or at least it seems that way sometimes). Supposing that Bike Lanes had no debris, and were smooth and well designed, What would be wrong with traffic flowing smoothly past a cyclist who also is riding along un-obstructed? How is that more dangerous? What we are describing here is a slow moving vehicle lane dedicated for bicycle use. If they worked as designed how would they be arguably more dangerous? Once we establish this we can talk about shortcomings. When motorists can pass me with less worry then I get less harassment and that makes greater safety in my mind. Not that I don't ride roads without bike lanes but just having a little trouble getting your logic here as far as well designed bike lanes making things more dangerous. Now ill designed bike lanes is another story but it seems like we are dealing in generalities here so lets assume a utopian bike lane.
A slow moving vehicle lane with traffic flowing smoothly past is a fine idea, but it's not a bike lane. Well, it's part of what a bike lane is, but the problem is everything else that most bike lanes are. The ideal only exists on isolated stretches of intersectionless (including no driveways) high-speed roadway. Freeway bike lanes come to mind... which I support.

But as soon as you have any reason for motorists to enter or cross the bike lane, or any reason for cyclists to exit the bike lane, like to prepare for a left turn, to avoid the right turn lane, or to bypass an obstacle, you no longer have the ideal slow moving lane dedicated for bicycle use that you fantasize, but a cyclist-disabling facility that leaves those cyclists who are hurt by it the most - the less experienced ones - with a false sense of security.

The gorilla wasn't off to the side, it was right in the middle of them, and people STILL missed seeing the gorilla.
Of course they missed seeing it, because their subconscious minds deemed the gorilla to be irrelevant to the task at hand (counting the number of passes), and did not bother to alert the conscious mind about it.

This is what I believe happens when a driver's subconscious mind processes a sighting of a cyclist up ahead who is "out of the way' off to the side and/or in the bike lane. It deems the "out of the way" cyclist to be irrelevant to the task at hand - getting from A to B.

Now, a cyclist who is IN the driver's path up ahead, that's something else. When the subconscious mind processes this cyclist, it WILL alert the conscious mind. Once you have the driver's attention, then you move out of the way, so that as he passes you he is aware of your presence, and exceedingly unlikely to inadvertently drift into you.

would the bike rider be any LESS dead if she was riding in the center of a "regular" lane and the driver's attention had been diverted to read a sign causing him to to just plow into the rider? probably not.
No one knows for sure, of course, but I think if the cyclist had been riding in the center of the lane for some time as the driver approach, at some point he would have looked up and seen her, and taken notice because she was in the center of his lane. As he got closer, she would have noticed in her rear view mirror that he was about 4-5 seconds back, and then she could have moved aside. But by then he would be aware of her, and more careful not to drift. But with her riding in the bike lane the whole time, any time he looked up as he was approaching her, even if she was visible to him, his subconscious mind would have no reason to bother his conscious mind about her presence, since she was off riding in her lane, outside of his intended path.



Given that the driver was not paying attention to what was in front of him, it's also possible that he may have hit a Ped in a crosswalk...are crosswalks bad for peds, too?
A normal level of attention would explain him not being aware of a cyclist up ahead riding in a bike lane for the 10s of seconds, if not minutes, that he was approaching her. Not paying attention for some small number of seconds, 4, 6, 8... would explain why he would have missed seeing her even as he drifted into her.

But not seeing her if she was riding in the center of the lane the whole time he was approaching is something else again.

She must have been riding her brakes, or he was speeding, since a cyclist can usually do the speed limit by just coasting down the hill at this location.This occurred in the westbound direction, not eastbound. The driver was looking for the I-280 northbound off-ramp and veered into the bike lane.

The problem isn't bike lanes or no bike lanes, it's incompetent drivers who aren't in control of their vehicle.

I generally see eye to eye with HH on traffic cycling technique, but I see this attempt to catalog a certain type of car/bike crash as pointless at best. I find HH's theory that a cyclist in a bike lane is "out of sight, out of mind" to the motorist to be quite interesting, but when you're looking at a single incident there's so many variables - i.e., you'd never be able to know that the crash wouldn't have happened if there was no bike lane. If someone's going to do a controlled study on the subject, I'd sure be interested in the results. If not, this becomes just another one of those "car hits bike" threads.

A better catchphrase than "out of sight, out of mind" for my hypothesis might be, "out of my intended path, out of my mind"

Freeway bike lanes come to mind... which I support.

.
There was a project here in ohio years ago caled the ohio vally bike web some times refered to as cycle web. What it was was fully seperated bike lanes on major highways. This included extra wide shoulders (10 feet in some areas) bike bridges over off ramps and on ramps or under them as well as bike on and off ramps (ramps never got built as project was axed befor that) There are some signs of the project on highways. Like areas where there is 6 to 10 feet of pavement out side a double gaurd rail. Extensions of the support struts for bridges hanging off the side of bridges out side the guard rail. And many other what drivers consider oddities. If this project had been completed a cyclist could have went nearly any where in ohio or states invulved in the project with out a single worry about being buzzed by a car. The distance between the double gaurd rails was about 4 feet. Big old buffer zone esp when you take in to account cars will be traveling 3 to 5 feet away from the inner gaurd rail to begin with.

A better catchphrase than "out of sight, out of mind" for my hypothesis might be, "out of my intended path, out of my mind"

The correct phrase would be: Not car, out of my mind.

The correct phrase would be: Not car, out of my mind.
But that can't be true, or we'd all be hit every day.

My personal experience is that cars do manage to go around me without hitting me. So they must be aware of me.

But that can't be true, or we'd all be hit every day.

My personal experience is that cars do manage to go around me without hitting me. So they must be aware of me.

"I didn't see him".

"I didn't see him".
I contend that "I didn't see him" almost never occurs when the cyclist has been riding up ahead in the driver's path positioned centerish in the lane, and, in the extremely rare case when a motorist might not see the cyclist and continue to approach, when he is within 4-5 seconds the cyclist (monitoring with mirror) can ditch. Works for me, and I've never had to ditch.

In general "I didn't see him" almost always happens when the cyclist's and motorist's paths cross at a single point, or if the cyclist is riding up ahead outside of the motorist's path, like in a bike lane.

"I didn't see him".

Therefore... what, exactly? Stay completely off the roads? What is your recommendation?

A slow moving vehicle lane with traffic flowing smoothly past is a fine idea, but it's not a bike lane. Well, it's part of what a bike lane is, but the problem is everything else that most bike lanes are. The ideal only exists on isolated stretches of intersectionless (including no driveways) high-speed roadway. Freeway bike lanes come to mind... which I support.

But as soon as you have any reason for motorists to enter or cross the bike lane, or any reason for cyclists to exit the bike lane, like to prepare for a left turn, to avoid the right turn lane, or to bypass an obstacle, you no longer have the ideal slow moving lane dedicated for bicycle use that you fantasize, but a cyclist-disabling facility that leaves those cyclists who are hurt by it the most - the less experienced ones - with a false sense of security.


Facts man, facts, where are the numbers that show that people riding with a bike lane get hurt more than people without a bike lane? Until we have that this is all just words and fantasies VC or no. My experience shows that drivers are just as stupid to a slow moving traffic lane as they are to a bike lane. If one is riding vehicularly in the bike lane it is no surprise to drivers when the bike smoothly changes lanes to avoid problems in the bike lane. As long as we are taking facts out of context did you know that the majority of children hit by cars were not in the bike lane but were in the MIDDLE of the STREET?

Anyway, I ride VC most of the time, and I use bike lanes. If find different situations require different strategies. If some idiot is weaving all over the road behind me the last thing I want to do is get in front of him, however, most drivers don't weave all over the road, thus most of the time, VC is a good idea.

I contend that "I didn't see him" almost never occurs when the cyclist has been riding up ahead in the driver's path positioned centerish in the lane, and, in the extremely rare case when a motorist might not see the cyclist and continue to approach, when he is within 4-5 seconds the cyclist (monitoring with mirror) can ditch. Works for me, and I've never had to ditch.

In general "I didn't see him" almost always happens when the cyclist's and motorist's paths cross at a single point, or if the cyclist is riding up ahead outside of the motorist's path, like in a bike lane.


And I contend it depends completely on the time of day. The only accident I have been in as an adult happened when I was riding in the middle of my lane and a approaching car turned left and t-boned me up onto his hood like a deer. It was morning and the glare blinded him and, guess what? "He just didn't see me".

Bike lanes are white paint stripes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I really don't see how a stripe of white paint can effectively protect us from cagers -- erratic, distracted, drunk or otherwise. If stripes are ineffective, what sense does it make to spend millions of dollars painting them on the pavement?

Well, those pretty yellow lines down the center of most streets seem to prevent most car-on-car head on collisions, and to keep traffic to the right.


Of course, cycling is pretty safe anyway. Stripes or not, helmet or not, and lights or not.
That's the truth, ruth.

I contend that "I didn't see him" almost never occurs when the cyclist has been riding up ahead in the driver's path positioned centerish in the lane, and, in the extremely rare case when ...

In general "I didn't see him" almost always happens when the cyclist's and motorist's paths cross at a single point, or if the cyclist is riding up ahead outside of the motorist's path, like in a bike lane.
And I contend it depends completely on the time of day. The only accident I have been in as an adult happened when I was riding in the middle of my lane and a approaching car turned left and t-boned me ...
What you describe, Paul, a left hook, is not what I was talking about. A left hook is a case where the cyclist's and motorist's path meet at a single point (in the intersection), but are otherwise non-coincident. That's exactly when "I didn't see him happens".

What I'm contending is that "I didn't see him" does not happen when the cyclist is riding in the motorist's path for some time, not just at one point as in your example.
In other words, I'm talking about the cyclist and motorist traveling on the same road, in the same lane, for some significant amount of time/distance, with the cyclist ahead of the motorist, and not off to the side and/or in a bike lane. I'm saying in that situation, the "I didn't see him" phenomenon essentially does not happen.

Anyway, I ride VC most of the time, and I use bike lanes.
Your statement implies that using a bike lane is necessarily not VC. Is that what you believe?

Your statement implies that using a bike lane is necessarily not VC. Is that what you believe?

Nope, just seems like arguments on here imply that. I usually ride to the left most portion of the bike lane and would think this would be a more "VC" way of using a bike lane though as it would theoretically increase visiblity the closer you got to car traffic. It also means if you need to swing out of the bike lane for any reason that your movement will be less severe and will create less of a surprise factor to the motorists behind (and if they have been planning on giving you the 3-5 feet or more of passing clearance that they should they might not even have to swerve when they pass you).

Your statement implies that using a bike lane is necessarily not VC. Is that what you believe?

It could be that the likes of your sig foster that opinion... What else would one think upon viewing:



What is VC? Start learning about Vehicular Cycling.
Why oppose bike lanes? Find out about the bike lane debate.

Gene, you're confusing my opposition to the existence of bike lanes with an opposition to the usage of existing bike lanes.

I oppose air pollution too. That doesn't mean I won't use air that has some pollution in it.

Gene, you're confusing my opposition to the existence of bike lanes with an opposition to the usage of existing bike lanes.

I oppose air pollution too. That doesn't mean I won't use air that has some pollution in it.

I am not confusing anything... I am just reporting what I and others see. If you talk about women in one sentence and in the very next demean red heads, is it not highly likely that someone would then conclude that you don't like redhead women?

You have 4 sentences in your sig, one says check out VC, the very next says bike lanes suck... how could someone not then conclude that VC and bike lanes are in opposition?

Don't blame me for your sig and the conclusions that others may jump to.

Therefore... what, exactly? Stay completely off the roads? What is your recommendation?

Follow the laws and ride to the right. If there is a bike lane, be legal and ride in it.
You're no more visible to others when directly in front of them than when you're a bit to the right. People that pay attention to their driving will see cyclists no matter where they are in the road. This is based on personal experience on the road, where I've had the exact same things happen to me whether I was in the bike lane or out into the lane. YMMV

Follow the laws and ride to the right. If there is a bike lane, be legal and ride in it.
You're no more visible to others when directly in front of them than when you're a bit to the right. People that pay attention to their driving will see cyclists no matter where they are in the road. This is based on personal experience on the road, where I've had the exact same things happen to me whether I was in the bike lane or out into the lane. YMMV

Motorists should be scanning the road in front of them with their eyes to begin with. Take shoping centers for example. I cant even begin to tell you how many times ive seen shoping carts smashed in to a million pieces on the road in the middle on the side on the side walk etc. Where they have rolled out on to the road i can asure you that the car that hit them was smashed up real good from the hit. I seen one cart get clipped just as it rolled in to the road. The hit peeled the driver side fender back. Yest thats right the cart crossed full lanes of the road in to the drivers path. From the way the carts front end was torn off and up he just barly clipped it while doing 25 30 mph. The driver would never hae hit it had he been scanning the road he could have sweved a tiny bit and sped up a tiny bit and got by with out the hit.He never even tried to break swerve or speed up. Just maintained the line and speed and hit it. Obviously he never seen it. Had he scanned the road with his eyes he would have more than likly missed hitting it.

Its the same thing for alot of hits that are not much more than clippng a cyclists. It could easly be avoided if the driver simply scanned the road in front of him from right to left and back while driving. I ride in silver creek park all the time all roads and parking lots and im always scanning with my eyes ahead of me so i avoid nailing som one on foot or some little kid on their bike. Parents take their kids there to ride the lots because it is safe. And by god i intend to not make it any less safe. So i scan the area infront of me all the time. For a cyclist it also lets us enjoy or ride more as we can adjust our path to avoid hitting ruff areas in the pavement or flat out pot holes. Drivers should do it if for no other reason than to avoid causeing 100s of dolors worth of damge from some small object rolling in to their path.

You're no more visible to others when directly in front of them than when you're a bit to the right.
Disagree with me if you want, but at least disagree with what I am saying, not with something else. If you think that saying that being a bit to the right does not make you significantly less visible, is disagreeing with what I'm saying, then you're not following what I'm saying.

I am not disputing visibility per se. In terms of avoiding the inadvertent drift collision, what's more important than whether you are visible to motorists, is whether they are consciously AWARE of your presence as they are approaching from behind you.

As we all know, a person can look right at someone or something and not be aware of it, no matter how visible, if he's distracted and his subconscious mind does not deem the someone or something worth bringing to the conscious mind's attention.

With that in mind, my contention is that being off to the right, outside of a motorists's intended path, especially if you're separated from that intended path by a stripe, makes the focused/distracted motorist significantly more likely to be unaware of your presence than if you had been traveling in his intended path, and moved aside after riding in his path up ahead for some time made him aware of your presence.

Disagree with me if you want, but at least disagree with what I am saying, not with something else. If you think that saying that being a bit to the right does not make you significantly less visible, is disagreeing with what I'm saying, then you're not following what I'm saying.

I am not disputing visibility per se. In terms of avoiding the inadvertent drift collision, what's more important than whether you are visible to motorists, is whether they are consciously AWARE of your presence as they are approaching from behind you.

As we all know, a person can look right at someone or something and not be aware of it, no matter how visible, if he's distracted and his subconscious mind does not deem the someone or something worth bringing to the conscious mind's attention.

With that in mind, my contention is that being off to the right, outside of a motorists's intended path, especially if you're separated from that intended path by a stripe, makes the focused/distracted motorist significantly more likely to be unaware of your presence than if you had been traveling in his intended path, and moved aside after riding in his path up ahead for some time made him aware of your presence.

I think you're saying that they are not unaware of us a bit to the right, but notice us and then dismiss us as out of their way? I could at least meet you halfway on that, since my belief is that the motorists we have trouble with are the ones that we'd have trouble with whether we were in the bike lane or right in front of them. These are the motorists that are so zoned that they wouldn't notice us right in the middle of the lane.
I've been right hooked while in the bike lane, and right hooked while taking the lane. There's really no way to say that the ones that did it while I was in the bike lane didn't see me. While taking the lane, the drivers either did the right hook from the left lane, or split the two lanes and still did the right hook.
The stripe really wouldn't have much to do with it, since in a wide right lane I stay a bit to the right of the cars anyway. Veering left and right as I ride is not "holding my line", and is not a good way, to me, to ride. I put it in the same category as going up on the sidealk and back into the street.

I am copying and posting this from the bicyclingadvocacy list at yahoo groups, which was posted today.

It's yet another incident of a cyclist in a bike lane being hit. When drivers treat us as if we're not there when we're in the bike lane it's often because they are not aware that we are there in the bike lane (since they are understandably being more attentive to their intended path). Should they decide to attend to a distraction because they think it's safe to do so at that moment since their intended path is clear, and they drift while attending to the distraction with their eyes off of the road, and there is a cyclist up ahead in the bike lane that they did not notice, well... read on...



Accident Report, Sideswiped by SUV.

I'm OK.

First one since 1989. Over 80,000 miles of incident-free cycling.

North San Diego County.

Sideswiped by a SUV when I was cycling down La Costa Ave toward El Camino
yesterday. Riding my Bachetta Strada recumbent. The tailbox on the back of
the bike took most of the hit. . New Grey Suburban was going over 50, and
it just moved into the bike lane (saw it in the rear view less than a second
before impact). Driver could have been distracted or just a jerk ... Hit
and run.

Police showed up fast (cell phoned 911), I was patched up, and I decided to
ride home so I wouldn¹t get all stiff. Didn¹t get the plate #, but the
Police were great.

Damage to me:

Bruises and some nasty road rash on hip and arm (I was riding at 21 mph when
I hit the pavement). Paramedics checked me out ... No major problems. I
could have had a ride to the Hospital, but I decided to ride home so I
wouldn¹t get all stiff. I've been through this when I used to race bikes
(USCF) and I get locked up if I don't keep moving. I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS
TO ANYONE, but it's what I did.

Damage to the bike:

Front tire's sidewall is torn up ... Got home by lowering the air pressure.
One of the tailbox's 3/4" clip that connects the tailbox to the Bachetta's
seat bag adaptor broke, and REI doesn't sell the compatible part anymore.
Even though the Suburban hit the side of the box, the box survived. Need a
new seat cover.

Lesson learned:

"Magic Paint" isn't going to protect you from the distracted driver. I
should have been "Checking 6" more often. Situation awareness and all of
that. Should I have taken the lane? There was a decently wide bike lane in
this case. Still, having the tail box get hit and being clipped into the
pedals made the fall less traumatic.

There's a device called "DriverCam" made in San Diego that records the last
30 seconds on video before and after an accident (yes, it's a very clever
flash-memory based "circular buffer"). I know the folks who make this, I'd
love to have one for the bike. Get that plate # and all of that.

Is there some evidence that motorists 'inadvertantly drift' into bike lanes more than, say, the adjacent traffic lane? I didn't think so. Nothing new to see here, same old mindless anti-bike lane bulltwinkle.