a bicyclist doesn't 'control' anything except their position in the lane, what drivers do is up to them.

Basing part of a bicycling methodology on the premise that a bike has the power to 'herd traffic' is delusional.

Imposing this delusional premise as part of bicycling advocacy is a disservice to the bicycling public.

Delusional.
Madcap.
Way off base.

Don't ask moms or kids to 'control traffic' as the way to 'ride a bike' instead of lobbying for well designed bicycle accomodations.


Bicyclists by and large don't want to be out herding traffic, nor would they get off on the power trip of control by doing so, which is what helmet head sounds like he does when he sits is his car and daydreams about bicycling.
You are quibbling over the word "control" but I think that we do control or direct cager behavior all the time. Every time I look over my left shoulder, and move to the left side of my lane, I indicate to following motorists that I want to move over to the left. If I look back to the front and maintain speed, I direct them to overtake me. If I keep looking back and keep moving over while speeding up, I direct them to lag back and let me in. I realize that I can't "make" them ollow my direction, but they almost always do!

This is just a quick example. Don't you do stuf like that bek?

I ride more in the lane than many of the bicyclists I see, but to develop a system of cycling where a bicyclist possesses large amount of control over cars, i.e. 'herding cars' is a disservice to both bicyclists and traffic flow.

A bike does NOT 'herd traffic' and a vehicular cyclist does not 'herd traffic,' a vehicular cyclist operates their bike following traffic laws. And that includes moving as far right as practicable, and not 'edging to the left' to make it clear a bike is not going to share a lane.

Share the lane, already! Jeesh! That 'danger door zone' is a crock of shizzle too, but that's the subject of another VC/SC puzzler.....

Helmet head makes it sound like with a simple positioning or wave of the hand, cars and drivers, and specifically in this thread, BAD drivers, will magically be 'herded' into compliance.

I think HH doesn't ride his bike enough to get a clear picture of what is happening on the roadways between bikes and cars. I really don't. One of his last VC puzzlers was from him riding in his car, criticizing a bicyclist.

The little dog doesn't have the capcity to move the much larger cow or sheep, but he creates the effect. If one's bike wasn't there the car would take a different path, however slightly. So I think "herd" is arguable. But it is also a little agressive. I would probably prefer to interact with cars something that involves give and take.

I don't worry about bad driving that much. I would worry, I just don't generally see that much, and it's crowded around here, if not as bad a socal. A lot of this has to be local. I noticed in NB that drivers gave me a huge margin, barreling down the opposite side of the road. This worried me. They did it out of politness, but I also felt they were worried about getting too close. What if oncoming trafic forced a 3 way, would they be outside their comfort zone?

So when I see a lot of "bad" driving it does worry me. I tried comuting during a transit strike, and there were so many unskilled drivers, I had to give up my bike comute. It made me realize how good the regular drivers are. Consider the positives of their behaviour, also.

You never think it will happen to you. And unfortunately it will eventually. It's just a question of how bad will the car driver mess you up with their car. Trust me, getting hit by an SUV hurts, excruciating pain. Totally life changing experience.

You can quibble over some of Serge's phrasing, and in practice all this may not do much to disuade a truly aggressive motorist, but I actually agree with most of this post.

And the term VC is only used twice. Let's see if we can get it down to zero. :)

All I would add is that, IMO, a mirror is essential when riding in traffic, it gives you much greater awareness of the following traffic, allowing you to make better decisions regarding your own safety.

I actually agree with his post too... But I want to add that while I agree, and while he did say that it does not work 100% of the time... this thread is about bad drivers, not the co-operative ones that will stay behind you when you claim a lane or at least move out far enough that motorists get the message that you are not to be passed easily.

But the bad drivers won't get this message... they can't seem to read "messages" from cyclists, or even other motorists... to them it is all about "owning the road." So while HH's method works for 99% of the motorists out there... the odd 1% may still pose a threat... these are the idiots that go out of their way to go around you in the face of obvious oncoming traffic, who move to the straight thru lane on the left to make a right turn around you, while you are in the right lane and they still attempt to do a right hook on you. These are the idiots that try to "teach lessons" to cyclists by bumping your bike (SMU professor in Dallas).

These folks are the ones that really should not be behind the wheel and who may not be driving on a valid license.

Honestly there is no defense against these folks except extraordinary actions which few of us are prepared for...

Our best defense in these cases is a better offense... better enforcement... so that "6 time drunk driving loser" is NOT allowed to drive again, nor is anyone else that has pushed the limits of co-operative society. For the life of me I cannot figure out why some judges have let some of these jerks back on the road.

While I agree with you that defensive driving is an active state of being concern(worry) or alert, but a good cyclists can not be more aware than a good motorist. Assuming each person is given 20 alertness pionts. A good motorist will apply 19 of that to observing the environement and 1 to instrumentation (including shifting, operating brake, and speedometer, while a cyclist will give 19 to the environment and 1 to pedaling and doing things like braking, hand position, body position. Thus, a good cyclist can not be more alert than a good motorist, but the bad cases of both motorist and cyclist will think their invulnerable or justnothing wil happen to them, so they will spend their alertness point however they feel like. Their is nothing inclusive in cycling that make a cyclist more alert.

One thing that you forget is that bicycle are the not the size of other vechiles on the roads, so the proability of the accident is change. For instance, most trucks on the road act like vechiles, but the normalized accident ratio of trucks in accident compared to accident that happen (delivery trucks, and such not sport pickup) compared to cars is lower. Thus, one must realize that the size of a vechile also affect the probability of an accidents. While a cyclist has a higher risk of injury when associated with an accident, but is less likily to have one due to its size share on the road. It appears that cars have the optimal size share for accident while everything outside of that is decrease, but I have not check that theory with motorcycle data.

While I agree with you that defensive driving is an active state of being concern(worry) or alert, but a good cyclists can not be more aware than a good motorist. Assuming each person is given 20 alertness pionts. A good motorist will apply 19 of that to observing the environement and 1 to instrumentation (including shifting, operating brake, and speedometer, while a cyclist will give 19 to the environment and 1 to pedaling and doing things like braking, hand position, body position. Thus, a good cyclist can not be more alert than a good motorist, but the bad cases of both motorist and cyclist will think their invulnerable or justnothing wil happen to them, so they will spend their alertness point however they feel like. Their is nothing inclusive in cycling that make a cyclist more alert.

I disagree... a cyclist is more "in" their operating environment... we hear the engines reving, we hear the tires squealing, we can easily see 180 degrees around us without door posts in the way. We even hear blinkers and control boxes for stop lights. We hear pedestrians.

A motorist in a modern vehicle is surrounded by glass and metal pillers; the radio is on, they may be on a cell phone, the AC may be on, the windows rolled up... the motorists only connection with their operating environment is their instruments and their eyes, which they take off the road to look at the instruments... and cell phone and radio... etc.

No, I believe from a defensive posture, a cyclist is much more aware of the environment around them than a motorist.

First of all, I did not invent the term "herding". I saw it referenced in an email, and I immediately knew what it meant. Since I use google email, I can easily search for the message. In fact, I did, and it's quoted in entirety below.

Secondly, "bad" drivers can be herded. Herding refers to traffic traveling in packs, and a single cycling causing the entire "pack" to move around him or whatever. This works just as well whether the pack consists of "good" or "bad" drivers. Even bad drivers are good at following the car in front of them. Where "bad" drivers are a mostly problem is when they're solo, and they suddenly appear without looking (running a red light, turning left without looking, passing a cyclist and then slowing and turning right, etc. etc.). That is the type of bad driving we can anticipate, prepare for, and almost eliminate its impact on us. That leaves the homocidal maniacs and drunks who make extraordinary errors in judgment. We are vulnerable to them, and there is very little if anything we can do about that, so why fret about it? Do what you can, and leave the rest in the hands of fate or God or whatever you want to call it.

Here's the email in which I was introduced to the concept of herding traffic. It's only a minor reference, but it's a good message overall, so I'm including the whole thing:



1. Scanning for what's behind (some call it the "shoulder-check") is a
valuable skill for bicyclists, useful both for seeing what's back there
when we need to make lateral moves, and for showing those following that we
see and will take account of them. But, since most of the hazards for us
are coming from the front and sides, it's important not to devote too much
time or attention to what may be coming up from the rear. That said,
although I habitually scan when I want to change lanes, turn, merge, etc.,
I also find that using a rear-view mirror helps me gage the conditions back
there more often and w/o requiring as much attention as a scan. (The ways
that bicyclists can "herd traffic" is a fun topic.)

2. Neither a scan or a mirror (or a bike lane for that matter) will protect
us from "nuts behind the wheels" but, when we are visible to unimpaired
drivers - especially by appropriately using proper (and legal) lane
positioning - we are relatively safe from being crashed into from behind.
(Lights, reflectors, conspicuous clothing, etc. certainly help too.)

3. I find that reliance simply on "eye contact" is over-rated. Some people
seem to look right through me. Based on their (mis)behavior, they haven't
recognized that I'm there. Giving and getting a response, a movement of
recognition - a nod even - is a more reliable/positive indication of
recognition and intent, IMHO.

4. It is difficult for many people to trust in others good behavior in
traffic, but w/o some trust modern high capacity road traffic wouldn't
work. And, that said, successful bicyclists learn how to be vigilant for
motorist's and others errors while avoiding making their own errors - the
consequences of inattentiveness are more painful for us.

all i can say to that logic is YIKES! Serge....herding traffic in packs helps keep the bad drivers at bay? Woah. Do you actually ride a bicycle, or are you just making this stuff up for the internet?

Serge, most of what was said rings true, but here is where my little statement comes in:

Traffic is predictable, individual motorists are not.

Ya never know when mr frustrated is gonna punch it to run from the crowd.

all i can say to that logic is YIKES! Serge....herding traffic in packs helps keep the bad drivers at bay? Woah. Do you actually ride a bicycle, or are you just making this stuff up for the internet?
Woah is right about the so-called logic from Brother Jim (quoted by HH): "But, since most of the hazards for us are coming from the front and sides, it's important not to devote too much time or attention to what may be coming up from the rear."

Why is this so? Easy, GrandMaster Flash Forester sez so! And proved his conclusion with his very own brand of bogus hazard analysis techniques to work over cherry picked data points.

HH, have you ever herded cattle or attempted to herd bison? I didn't think so. Motor vehicle traffic is a lot like a herd of either...you might get away with this stuff with the cows, but sooner or later one of them bulls is gonna ruin your day.

I'm still trying to get over the laughable assertion that a bad driver will 1)be following traffic in front of them, and 2) since there's a samba line of traffic moving around a biker, that person is automatically safe from bad drivers.

This is absolutely absurd. What a false assertion, that bad drivers do not concern a bicyclist, because the inherent power of a bike to herd cars renders most bad drivers compliant....

Serge, I'm serious, do you just make this stuff up?

All right -- loaded phrases like "herding traffic" aside -- what is the best way to ensure your safety in traffic?

Should we ride as part of traffic? Make ourselves as visible as possible maybe? Take narrow lanes, even if it means putting ourselves "in the way?" I'd say so.

Or should we try to defend ourselves somehow against "the homocidal maniacs and drunks who make extraordinary errors in judgment"?

I agree with Serge that
We are vulnerable to them, and there is very little if anything we can do about that, so why fret about it? Do what you can, and leave the rest in the hands of fate or God or whatever you want to call it.

I think if we do try to protect ourselves from "bad" drivers (what are they? 1% of motorists, maybe?), then we put ourselves at greater risk from "good" drivers, the overwhelming majority of ordinary motorists who don't want to teach anyone a lesson, who just want to get home safely, who'll go around us -- if they can see us, and if they know they have to move into the other lane to get around safely.

This is my opinion, based on my experience. One thing I think we all have in common is that we don't have any other real evidence besides our own experience. Until there is something more concrete, I guess we all have to trust our own judgment. Good luck!

Serge, I'm serious, do you just make this stuff up?
I'd guess only when not herding cats.

First of all, I did not invent the term "herding". ......

Secondly, "bad" drivers can be herded. Herding refers to traffic traveling in packs, and a single cycling causing the entire "pack" to move around him or whatever. This works just as well whether the pack consists of "good" or "bad" drivers. Even bad drivers are good at following the car in front of them.


I shouldn't use the term 'laughable.' More appropriately, 'pathetic.'

I'm still trying to get over the laughable assertion that a bad driver will 1)be following traffic in front of them, and 2) since there's a samba line of traffic moving around a biker, that person is automatically safe from bad drivers.

This is absolutely absurd. What a false assertion, that bad drivers do not concern a bicyclist, because the inherent power of a bike to herd cars renders most bad drivers compliant....

Serge, I'm serious, do you just make this stuff up?
Agreed. My rear danger experience with bad/agressive drivers on multilane roads is when the 'herd' all merges left around me at 45mph, but one agressive driver thinks he has an opportunity to get around the herd and merges from the pack right behind me. They quickly see me as I am poster boy for high-vis, but even quickly seeing me requires they slam on brakes (and I've heard em squeal) or a sudden merge back into the pack which also can result in brakes squealing. I've also had to make a sudden merge into the gutter to avoid being hit by these type of drivers. It can be quite frightening to see a car traveling at 45mph suddenly merge right behind you.

Al

There is no such thing as a driver who is always bad, and no such thing as a driver who is never bad, but some drivers are bad more often than others.

This is why car insurance rates are structured the way they are.

I disagree... a cyclist is more "in" their operating environment... we hear the engines reving, we hear the tires squealing, we can easily see 180 degrees around us without door posts in the way. We even hear blinkers and control boxes for stop lights. We hear pedestrians.

A motorist in a modern vehicle is surrounded by glass and metal pillers; the radio is on, they may be on a cell phone, the AC may be on, the windows rolled up... the motorists only connection with their operating environment is their instruments and their eyes, which they take off the road to look at the instruments... and cell phone and radio... etc.

No, I believe from a defensive posture, a cyclist is much more aware of the environment around them than a motorist.

Think of the children. Isn't anyone thinking of the children!!!!

It is a rare cyclist who is distracted by a child on the same level that happens regularly in a car.

It is also rare for a cyclist to have navigation trouble on the same level as a car. E.g. trying to check the map and find street signs at the same time while still in traffic. Often a driver has almost no choice. no where to pull over and street signs or building numbers are gone before you can see them. A bike can almost always pull over and signs are in view much longer.

I'm still trying to get over the laughable assertion that a bad driver will 1)be following traffic in front of them, and 2) since there's a samba line of traffic moving around a biker, that person is automatically safe from bad drivers.

This is absolutely absurd. What a false assertion, that bad drivers do not concern a bicyclist, because the inherent power of a bike to herd cars renders most bad drivers compliant....

Serge, I'm serious, do you just make this stuff up?
The only absolute absurd assertion here is that I ever made the "assertion that a bad driver will 1)be following traffic in front of them, and 2) since there's a samba line of traffic moving around a biker, that person is automatically safe from bad drivers."

Funny how you rely on strawman arguments - first presenting your twisted version of what I said - and then citing that as being a laughable assertion - instead of quoting my actual words.

I never said any drivers ALWAYS follow others, much less bad drivers will ALWAYS do so.
I never said any cyclist is automatically safe from anything.

You are the cause of a lot of wasted bandwidth here, Bek, though I admit my culpability in not just ignoring your strawman arguments.

helmet head, if you think bad drivers tend to follow other drivers, and therefore avoid a bicyclist, you are seriously delusional.


the 'herding cars' analogy is pretty delusional in and of itself.

So is judging your lane position by cars behind you if you don't have a mirror- a near physical impossibility...

DELUSIONS.

Congratulations, Bek, I've had it. I'm really tired of it. You're the first one I've bothered to add to my ignore list. I'll take you off in about a week. But if you're still using straw men arguments, I'll put you right back on. In case you care.

"A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#In_logic_and_rhetoric

huh? you're tired of my arguments?

herding cars, and particularily, herding bad drivers in packs,

is correct bicycle traffic theory that doesn't need refuting?

I'm tired of both sides of this debate.

No one has any solid evidence to offer; we each have our opinion. Why we can't just offer that opinion, listen to everyone else's, agree or disagree and leave it at that is beyond me.

I'm especially tired of posts simply railing against other people's opinions without offering anything constructive. I know I'm not the only one.

But hey -- all of that is just my opinion, OK? :)

You are the cause of a lot of wasted bandwidth here, Bek, though I admit my culpability in not just ignoring your strawman arguments.
So Mr. Jerry Lewis wannabe, why not make like your comic partners and put EVERYBODY but Dean AND Martin on your ignore list? Then the three of you can just read each other's fan mail and high five each other all day over the amazingly astute posts posted by each other.