Advocacy & Safety - Bad drivers - a serious threat?

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?

Whether I'm walking, driving my car, or riding my bike, I do so defensively. I feel my behavior provides reasonable protection from mistakes of bad drivers. Sure, I'm still vulnerable to the most blatant and wild errors -- a drunk driver driving up onto the sidewalk, or coming across the road into my oncoming lane -- but the likelihood of my encountering such bad driving is so slim, the only reasonable assumption is to assume it won't happen.

So red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, etc., I say, yawn.

So red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, etc., I say, yawn.
What concerns me agressive drivers, pushing the limits of their perception and reaction times and the capabilities of their vehicles.

For example those who think they can squeeze into a 1.5 car length gap in the adjancent lane next to you and don't slow down as they approach. There is nothing a cyclist can do to control this behavior. The only thing a cyclist can do is swerve hard to the right as it seems a motorist is not merging left in time.

Al

but the likelihood of my encountering such bad driving is so slim, the only reasonable assumption is to assume it won't happen.



not so here, unfortunately. but most of the things drivers do everyday isn't something to be too concerned about. if everyone is speeding or running red lights all the time, you just adjust accordingly.

it's the truly unpredictable actions that do present a real problem. i'd say on nearly every single ride i do in the city - someone pulls out across all lanes and does a 360 with little or no warning. That’s the stuff I worry about, and if I’m quick enough to move around it unharmed.

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?

Whether I'm walking, driving my car, or riding my bike, I do so defensively. ...


Yes, bad drivers are a serious threat. And, yes, it is worth worrying about.

I realize this is semantics, but anyone who drives/rides defensively is taking the threat of bad drivers seriously.

..QED?

Yes, bad drivers are a serious threat. And, yes, it is worth worrying about.

I realize this is semantics, but anyone who drives/rides defensively is taking the threat of bad drivers seriously.
+1

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?

Whether I'm walking, driving my car, or riding my bike, I do so defensively. I feel my behavior provides reasonable protection from mistakes of bad drivers. Sure, I'm still vulnerable to the most blatant and wild errors -- a drunk driver driving up onto the sidewalk, or coming across the road into my oncoming lane -- but the likelihood of my encountering such bad driving is so slim, the only reasonable assumption is to assume it won't happen.

So red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, etc., I say, yawn.


Roughly 42,000 people a year would not agree with your assesment... they can't they are dead due to auto accidents. Sure only about 700 cyclists die each year... so we are just a "drop in the bucket."

BTW, if you really believe that the chances of you ever getting in an accident are so slim, you should probably "self insure" and save your annual cost of premiums.

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?
You're kidding right? What planet are you on?

They are such a serious threat that in my small city:
- people don't let their kids ride or walk to school (bad drivers aren't the only reason)
- people won't ride bikes themselves on roads, confining themselves to bike trails
- people place signs they've bought or made themselves in the streets to try to warn of children playing or to tell drivers slow down
- the government has had to place signs in the road to remind people to give pedestrians the right of way at crosswalks (above and beyond the typical signage)
- people form committees to get the city to create and install traffic calming devices on their streets
- other people get angry and write letters to the editor almost weekly about said traffic calming devices slowing them down
- people have been killed by road raged drivers
- people have been killed by drunk drivers (who have also hit and run)
- people are killed frequently in auto accidents caused by driver error on mountain highways

Should I keep going?

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?

...

So red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, etc., I say, yawn.

You have just contradicted everything you have ever said about VC and cycling.

You have just contradicted everything you have ever said about VC and cycling.

Not really... he is just saying that he has such super defensive skills that the idiots out there don't bother him...

Meanwhile the rest of the human race are just... human... and 42,000 of them perish each year because of some form of driving accident.

In the meantime I'll slip a bit of kryptonite near Serge the next time I see him.

Yes, bad drivers are a serious threat. And, yes, it is worth worrying about.

I realize this is semantics, but anyone who drives/rides defensively is taking the threat of bad drivers seriously.

..QED?
+10

Helmet, have you lost your cotton pickin' mind?
Been nice knowing you, man.

Another thing to consider is that the problem is not confined to "bad" drivers. All drivers make mistakes as do all cyclists. Some make more mistakes than others and some environments encourage more mistakes than others.

Technique is certainly important, but the cyclist must always pay 100% attention to everything going on around him/her. In other words, the cyclist must always "be worried" about traffic.


I like to think of this stuff in terms of risk assessment. The "risk" of any endevor can be thought of as the product of the severity of a bad outcome and its probability...

risk = severity x probability

Assuming that a cyclist does nothing more than to "behave like a vehicle", his probability of a getting into an accident is roughly the same (conservatively) as the probability of a car getting into an accident-- per mile of travel. Unfortunately, for the cyclist, the severity of any traffic accident is going to be much higher because the cyclist does not have the protection of bumpers, crumple zones, and 2000 pounds of metal. The bottom line is that the cyclist takes on a greater risk per mile of travel than a car does.

What this means is that a cyclist has to pay MUCH MUCH MORE attention to traffic and environment than a car driver does. By doing that, the cyclist reduces the probability of an accident and thus lowers the risk of a bad outcome to something tolerable.

Like I always say, expect the other guy to do the dumbest thing possible, plan for Murphy.

I agree with Noisebeam about aggressive drivers and would add the dimwitted drivers who just plain ain't paying attention.

Like I always say, expect the other guy to do the dumbest thing possible, plan for Murphy.

I agree with Noisebeam about aggressive drivers and would add the dimwitted drivers who just plain ain't paying attention.

But regarding those "who just ain't paying attention... " could distractions in the vehicle be part of that issue?

Of course passengers have long been a distraction, as well as the radio and possibly food, but now add: Cell phones, GPS systems, video entertainment systems, and now game systems, not to mention that the interior of auto has been quieted, further seperating the driver from their environment...

Add to that a more crowded environment, and higher speeds...

Yeah, Murphy is the number one problem... but no point in giving him assistance either.

But regarding those "who just ain't paying attention... " could distractions in the vehicle be part of that issue?

Of course passengers have long been a distraction, as well as the radio and possibly food, but now add: Cell phones, GPS systems, video entertainment systems, and now game systems, not to mention that the interior of auto has been quieted, further seperating the driver from their environment...

Add to that a more crowded environment, and higher speeds...

Yeah, Murphy is the number one problem... but no point in giving him assistance either.

It's all Murphy - "What can go wrong, will go wrong"

Yes, bad drivers are a serious threat. And, yes, it is worth worrying about.

I realize this is semantics, but anyone who drives/rides defensively is taking the threat of bad drivers seriously.

..QED?
Very good. You got me.

I didn't make my point very clear in the OP. I think Gene knows what I meant, though he made fun of it.

Yes, of course, bad drivers are a serious threat and should be taken seriously. That's why we must operate defensively in the first place.

But my point is that given that you are operating defensively, the bad drivers are no longer a serious threat.

Example: Is cholera a serious threat worth worrying about? In the broad sense, yes, of course. But, realistically speaking, when was the last you did anything about or worried about cholera? So in the real/practical sense, no. Why? Because we have sewer systems and treated drinking water. We have this protection so we don't have to worry about the serious threat, and, in practice, it ceases to be a serious threat.

To me, bad drivers are the cholera of traffic. Operating non-defensively in traffic is like drinking from public restroom toilet bowls. Sooner or later you're going to get nailed. But if you take the basic precaution, you have so little to worry about it's not worth worrying about at all.

So I ride vehiculary - legally, visibly, predictably and defensively - and I don't drink from toilet bowls. As a result, I don't worry about cholera, or bad drivers. You can suit yourself.

Don't police enforce traffic laws (at least sometimes) to increase the overall safety of the roads? They're not out there just fundraising all the time.

Since we, the people, have charged the police with this duty, a basic form of driving education is required of new drivers, and we have made enforcable laws against breaking the rules of the road, I would say that bad driving is a problem that is being addressed.

Are these efforts enough? I would say so. Most drivers are competent.

Ya know, it's not the bad drivers that really ever bother me... it's the drivers that think they are real good and in fact really aren't...

These are the same guys noisebeam doesn't like and even chipcom recognizes...

Meanwhile, if there can be bad drivers, then there can also be bad defensive drivers... folks that have had the training, and yet still can't seem to get it right. Hey, these are aquired skills folks... we aren't all A+ students.

Don't police enforce traffic laws (at least sometimes) to increase the overall safety of the roads? They're not out there just fundraising all the time.

Since we, the people, have charged the police with this duty, a basic form of driving education is required of new drivers, and we have made enforcable laws against breaking the rules of the road, I would say that bad driving is a problem that is being addressed.

Are these efforts enough? I would say so. Most drivers are competent.

I don't know about your area, but locally we have one of the nation's lowest police to population ratios... and as long as the population continues to grow, and the costs of providing police service continue to climb, it is highly unlikely that there will ever been enough effort made to really rid the roads of the "bad drivers."

You are indeed right in that at least most folks do make the effort to do it right...

...
But my point is that given that you are operating defensively, the bad drivers are no longer a serious threat.
...


Okay, that's fine. However, operating defensively means being in an active state of "worry" or "concern" about whatever traffic situation you are in. Its not like a binary decision to "not drink from toilet bowls".

For the case of the cyclist, I would go even further and say that the cyclist must be more alert to traffic and potential problems simply because the penalty for failure is so much higher than for a car.

As a result, I don't worry about cholera, or bad drivers. You can suit yourself.
Perhaps what you mean is you don't worry, as in fret about bad drivers. But certainly you still worry about bad driving in the abstract.

A smart cycling advocate would worry about bad driving, especially about how it gets progressively worse, and they would work toward a solution.

Don't police enforce traffic laws (at least sometimes) to increase the overall safety of the roads?
You're joking, right?

Short answer: No.

The cops don't do a whole heck of a lot anymore, else there wouldn't be chronic speeding problems, hit and runs, stoplight/stop sign running, or reckless driving in general. But wait, there's more! Police driving recklessly themselves, and even roadraging on cyclists. Grand theft auto and illegal parking is about the only traffic laws they enforce. :rolleyes: And when they do enforce a traffic law, it's usually a warning or a paltry slap on the wrist.

Don't count on enforcement, cause dead seriously, it blows.

If you ride well you greatly decrease your chances of being harmed by a bad driver. So ride well and you don't have to worry that much. It seems pretty clear to me...

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?

So you have a "direct" solution? If not I suppose we should just ignore bad drivers. I'm also in favour of looking the other way when anything else bad or wrong happens. Especially when it hurts someone!

Do you read during before or after seeing a keyboard?

Okay, that's fine. However, operating defensively means being in an active state of "worry" or "concern" about whatever traffic situation you are in. Its not like a binary decision to "not drink from toilet bowls".

For the case of the cyclist, I would go even further and say that the cyclist must be more alert to traffic and potential problems simply because the penalty for failure is so much higher than for a car.
Angelo,

I like your posts. I agree. Your point about risk analysis and penalty for cyclists is right on. I do, however, prefer the terms "vigilant" and "alert" to "worry" and "concern". I also feel that the vigilance and alertness required to be reasonably safe as a cyclist in traffic, when you're already obeying the laws and practicing techniques to make you visible and predictable, is not extraordinary.

There is a school of thought (see David Glowacz' book, Urban Bikers Tips and Tricks) that "sly cyclists" can make reasonably safe illegal moves if done with care. But I think the more you do that, the more likely you'll get into trouble, sooner or later.

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?


So you have a "direct" solution? If not I suppose we should just ignore bad drivers. I'm also in favour of looking the other way when anything else bad or wrong happens. Especially when it hurts someone!

Do you read during before or after seeing a keyboard?
Ha ha. I'm surprised no one else asked about that.

What I meant by "directly" was taking measures to reduce the incidence of bad driving (better law enforcement, more training, smart cars, etc.) as opposed to indirect measures that do not affect the incidence of bad driving, like altering one's own behavior to be much less vulnerable to bad driving.

I think direct measures are largely ineffective and very expensive, while altering one's own behavior, to operate defensively, is highly effective and very inexpensive to learn.

+1 to many of the other replies.

In my case, I normally hear the term "bad drivers" from my non-cycling family and friends as a catch-all reason to stay away from road cycling. Yet if you press them for details, they're either evasive or they're always thinking the worst case scenario.

I also hear that from some of my triathlete coworkers (who only ride during daylight hours and always drive their bikes to "safe" places to ride) who see me changing in the locker room before my commute home. "I wouldn't do it, all of those crazy people and bad drivers." As if they're like werewolves that only come out on weeknights!

+1 to many of the other replies.

In my case, I normally hear the term "bad drivers" from my non-cycling family and friends as a catch-all reason to stay away from road cycling. Yet if you press them for details, they're either evasive or they're always thinking the worst case scenario.

I also hear that from some of my triathlete coworkers (who only ride during daylight hours and always drive their bikes to "safe" places to ride) who see me changing in the locker room before my commute home. "I wouldn't do it, all of those crazy people and bad drivers." As if they're like werewolves that only come out on weeknights!
+1 right back at ya

I hate to generalize, but there must be something inherent in personality types who are interested in scheduling their lives to the extent required in order to be able to master three different sports, that they don't have enough time to get a clue about any of it beyond the absolute minimum they think they need in order to be able to compete effectively.

Q: How do you get a tri-athlete to crash?

A: Put him on a bike.

How do you defend against drunk drivers?

jw

someone pulls out across all lanes and does a 360 with little or no warning

Why would someone intentionally do a 360 where there was traffic? You have people doing donuts in the street and finishing pointing the same way they started? I must say I've never seen behavior quite THAT nutty where there were many witnesses around.

How do you defend against drunk drivers?


The same way you defend yourself against any other unknown threat - by paying attention to your surroundings and planning for Murphy in an effort to avoid getting put into a situation where you are taken by surprise with no plan of action.

How do you defend against drunk drivers?

The same way you defend yourself against any other unknown threat - by paying attention to your surroundings and planning for Murphy in an effort to avoid getting put into a situation where you are taken by surprise with no plan of action.
+1 ... although even the best defense isn't always good enough. The only solution for the drunk driver problem is to get them off the road, as they are a menace to all, not just bicyclists.

Are bad drivers really a serious threat? Is it really something worth worrying about? Is it a problem that needs solving? Directly?

Whether I'm walking, driving my car, or riding my bike, I do so defensively. I feel my behavior provides reasonable protection from mistakes of bad drivers. Sure, I'm still vulnerable to the most blatant and wild errors -- a drunk driver driving up onto the sidewalk, or coming across the road into my oncoming lane -- but the likelihood of my encountering such bad driving is so slim, the only reasonable assumption is to assume it won't happen.

So red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, etc., I say, yawn.
Well, I'm not a fearful rider or driver. But are bad drivers (red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, aggressive drivers, drunk driver) a serious threat?

They only are if you are their victim.

I have to say that while I'm a defensive driver, there are times when you simply have to trust the other guy. That's the part that makes me vulnerable, whether as a driver or cyclist. Cycling is not something to be afraid of, but the idea that defensive driving (or cycling) can protect you from every eventuality is an impossible one. There is no such thing as perfect safety, not in life and especially not on the road. And in reality, nobody's perfect in their defensive techniques, so once in a while the best of us will screw up.

You only have to look at Ken Kifer's tragic death to see that even he who had done "all things right" was killed by a drunk who swerved across the entire road to collide with Ken on the opposite side.

You only have to look at Ken Kifer's tragic death to see that even he who had done "all things right" was killed by a drunk who swerved across the entire road to collide with Ken on the opposite side.

The most recent cyclist death near my home was when a teenage driver was reaching down to pick up a cell phone that had fallen on the floor. He was just popping over a hill around a curve. He went straight, the road curved. He collided directly with a female cyclist coming in the opposite direction. She had perhaps 2 seconds between when he came over the top of the hill and when he hit her.

She had no chance. Nothing she could have done, no style of riding that she could have been doing, would have saved her. The driver took her life 100% due to his own stupidity.

One of the perils of the information age is that extreme, rare cases become widely known, which leads people to believe that the world is much, much more dangerous than it actually is.

Yes, horrible things do happen. Tens of thousands of motorists die each year in car crashes. A few hundred cyclists die each year in bicycle crashes. That's a tiny fraction of the people who do these things. But for the families of those involved, it's cold comfort that the event that took the life of their loved one was highly unlikely. Because of the ready availability of information, we are made painfully aware of their terrible suffering, and the gruesome details of these rare, horrible events.

I don't think this awareness is a bad thing until it makes us so afraid that we stop doing the things that give our life meaning. It's good to know that bad things can happen if that knowledge makes us more careful. It's good to have the knowledge if it inspires us to find ways to make the world safer. But if I ever feel that too much knowledge of extreme, unlikely events is turning me into some scared little animal, afraid to do the things that give my life meaning, that's when I'll tune out.

So yeah -- bad driving is potentially a serious threat. The odds are strong that it won't cause you or me any harm, and there are things we can do to improve the odds further. Bicycle safely, visibly, and above all, attentively.

In the big picture, I think our culture needs a values shift, as a growing number of folks clearly seem to value small amounts of time, money and convenience more than they value the safety -- and even the lives -- of other people. I hope someone smarter than I am can figure out ways to create that values shift. All I can think of are better urban planning, better street/road design and more aggressive enforcement of existing traffic laws. Maybe a few new laws. And of course, more people cycling instead of driving. First we'll have to help them overcome their illogical fear of cycling....

Of course, what we all really should fear are unhealthy foods and sedentary lifestyles, since those things kill more than half of us.

Well, I'm not a fearful rider or driver. But are bad drivers (red light runners, speeders, lane drifters, stop rollers, reckless drivers, aggressive drivers, drunk driver) a serious threat?

They only are if you are their victim.

I have to say that while I'm a defensive driver, there are times when you simply have to trust the other guy. That's the part that makes me vulnerable, whether as a driver or cyclist. Cycling is not something to be afraid of, but the idea that defensive driving (or cycling) can protect you from every eventuality is an impossible one. There is no such thing as perfect safety, not in life and especially not on the road. And in reality, nobody's perfect in their defensive techniques, so once in a while the best of us will screw up.

You only have to look at Ken Kifer's tragic death to see that even he who had done "all things right" was killed by a drunk who swerved across the entire road to collide with Ken on the opposite side.

You said this perfectly. "They only are [a threat] if you are the victim." Sometimes your name is up, and nothing short of moving the Earth is going to change that. That said, I can see where there are limits to what a cyclist has to actively worry about. Most accidents are avoidable. Those you worry about. A small fraction of accidents are unavoidable. Since there is nothing to actively prepare, there is no need to worry about these.

If these risks cannot be accepted, then cycling on the roads is probably not for you; just remember that the risks from a sedentary lifestyle may well be higher than the risk of finding yourself in an unavoidable accident. This is in no way to be construed to mean that the levels are acceptable as they are. The goals of cycling advocacy should always be to minimize all risk to cyclists. Vehicular cycling techniques work to minimize the avoidable risk, but at the expense of increasing, a bit, the unavoidable risk. Whether this is a worth while tradeoff depends on how much risk one believes is avoidable vs. unavoidable. If the unavoidable risk is very small, doubling a very small number results in a number which is still very small. If one believes that the level of unavoidable risk is significant, then the doubling of a significant number makes the number more significant.

But this is all based on belief and experience. There is not enough data regarding the risks of the road to make a scientific determination.

Why would someone intentionally do a 360 where there was traffic? You have people doing donuts in the street and finishing pointing the same way they started? I must say I've never seen behavior quite THAT nutty where there were many witnesses around.

It happens... saw a guy do it in a late model Mustang about 3 weeks ago... took off from a left green and punched it thru a U turn, but kept on going around. There were only a few cars around and I saw it from the safety of a fenced in bike path about 200 yards away. Guy lost control just because he was doing a power play. No one was hurt, but the move was still stupid.

Why? Brain was smaller then balls.

One of the perils of the information age is that extreme, rare cases become widely known, which leads people to believe that the world is much, much more dangerous than it actually is.

Yes, horrible things do happen. Tens of thousands of motorists die each year in car crashes. A few hundred cyclists die each year in bicycle crashes. That's a tiny fraction of the people who do these things. But for the families of those involved, it's cold comfort that the event that took the life of their loved one was highly unlikely. Because of the ready availability of information, we are made painfully aware of their terrible suffering, and the gruesome details of these rare, horrible events.

I don't think this awareness is a bad thing until it makes us so afraid that we stop doing the things that give our life meaning. It's good to know that bad things can happen if that knowledge makes us more careful. It's good to have the knowledge if it inspires us to find ways to make the world safer. But if I ever feel that too much knowledge of extreme, unlikely events is turning me into some scared little animal, afraid to do the things that give my life meaning, that's when I'll tune out.

So yeah -- bad driving is potentially a serious threat. The odds are strong that it won't cause you or me any harm, and there are things we can do to improve the odds further. Bicycle safely, visibly, and above all, attentively.

In the big picture, I think our culture needs a values shift, as a growing number of folks clearly seem to value small amounts of time, money and convenience more than they value the safety -- and even the lives -- of other people. I hope someone smarter than I am can figure out ways to create that values shift. All I can think of are better urban planning, better street/road design and more aggressive enforcement of existing traffic laws. Maybe a few new laws. And of course, more people cycling instead of driving. First we'll have to help them overcome their illogical fear of cycling....

Of course, what we all really should fear are unhealthy foods and sedentary lifestyles, since those things kill more than half of us.


+1 especially in regard to the values shift concept... I think that the current situation is the heart of much frustration brought on by these tiny "rewards."

Whether I'm riding my bike, driving my car or operating the forklift at work, I operate that vehicle defensively. I do so to minimize the risk to myself. I know I can't eliminate the risks involved with those activities so I don't "worry" about eliminating them.

For me it boils down to what chipcom said earlier, "The [same] way you defend yourself against any [other] unknown threat - by paying attention to your surroundings and planning for Murphy in an effort to avoid getting put into a situation where you are taken by surprise with no plan of action." I don't think anyone can or should expect to be able to do more than that. That may be much too simplistic for some but it works for me.

Are bad drivers a threat? This story came out this week in the Santa Barbara News Press.

Kendra Payne, 21-year-old UCSB triathlete, was killed on Wednesday (Jan 11 2006) when she was hit by an asphalt truck while riding her bicycle. The driver of the truck and trailer, which was carrying a full load, was behind Ms. Payne and attempted to pass her when she apparently "lost control of her bicycle and was thrown to the roadway and under the trailer," the California Highway Patrol reported.

The truck had only about a foot of clearance when the driver, Miguel Almaguer,
26, attempted to pass, the CHP said.

When I read stories like this it makes me realize that there is always a chance it can happen to me. It is also the reason I have not encouraged my kids to get into cycling. Despite the fact that I ride very, very defensively, and trust no one behind the wheel when I'm on two wheels, I know I'm one stupid, callous move away from being a statistic every time I ride.

LT Intolerant

You said this perfectly. "They only are [a threat] if you are the victim." Sometimes your name is up, and nothing short of moving the Earth is going to change that. That said, I can see where there are limits to what a cyclist has to actively worry about. Most accidents are avoidable. Those you worry about. A small fraction of accidents are unavoidable. Since there is nothing to actively prepare, there is no need to worry about these.
Actually, it is your argument, Brian, that concludes, "Since there is nothing to actively prepare, there is no need to worry about these.", which is said perfectly, at least with respect to the argument I was trying to convey in the OP of this thread. Bravo.

Are bad drivers a threat? This story came out this week in the Santa Barbara News Press.

Kendra Payne, 21-year-old UCSB triathlete, was killed on Wednesday (Jan 11 2006) when she was hit by an asphalt truck while riding her bicycle. The driver of the truck and trailer, which was carrying a full load, was behind Ms. Payne and attempted to pass her when she apparently "lost control of her bicycle and was thrown to the roadway and under the trailer," the California Highway Patrol reported.

The truck had only about a foot of clearance when the driver, Miguel Almaguer,
26, attempted to pass, the CHP said.

When I read stories like this it makes me realize that there is always a chance it can happen to me. It is also the reason I have not encouraged my kids to get into cycling. Despite the fact that I ride very, very defensively, and trust no one behind the wheel when I'm on two wheels, I know I'm one stupid, callous move away from being a statistic every time I ride.

LT Intolerant
But, but, but, tragically, these types of accidents are largely preventable through cyclist behavior.

One of the most amazing differences I immediately noticed when I adopted vehicular cycling and a more assertive methodology when riding in traffic was how much more space motorists started giving me. I'm not talking a 10% change. I'm talking 1000%, or more. By that I mean that close passes went from a regular daily occurence to an almost never type of thing. And once I adopted a mirror and started using even finer adjustments in my lateral lane positioning in response to traffic approaching from the rear, it became an almost (but not quite) unheard-of occurence.

From "all the time" to "almost never" cannot be ignored.

I don't now for sure what happened in this case, but in all probability the cyclist was riding quite close to the edge or curb of the road, and the truck driver reasonably (for a non-cyclist, and even for many cyclists) interpreted that to mean that she was leaving the space in the lane to her left for others to use to pass her, including him. Now, the only time I ever do that is when the lane is sufficiently wide. But most cyclists keep to the side by habit, regardless of how narrow the lane is. In fact, the more narrow the lane, the more likely most are to hug the right edge. The reason I say "in all probability" that's what happened here, is because that's how the vast majority of cyclists behaves. And with CHP officers declaring that cyclists are legally obligated to stay out of the way of cars, and NY judges ruling that the purpose of bike lanes and side-of-the-road laws is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars, is it any wonder? I digress...

Much of what vehicular cycling is about, is controlling, or "herding", traffic. Most cyclists don't realize how much power we have in this respect. Our culture - and, yes, much of it reinforced by bike lanes, sorry - is that cyclists are supposed to stay out of the way of motorists. The result? "She apparently 'lost control of her bicycle and was thrown to the roadway and under the trailer,'". Tragedy.

Most cyclists, judging from how they behave, don't understand how they are perceived from behind by motorists. How it is natural for motorists to tend towards preserving a "symmetry of space" around the cyclist. If you leave one foot of space between you and the curb to your right, it's natural to assume that all the space you need on the left is also a foot. They're often not sure what to do, and look to us for cues... That's the source of much of our power, and our ability to herd traffic. Move left. Leave at least as much space on your right as you need preserved by passing motorists on your left. If that leaves just enough room on your left for some to still try to squeeze into the lane with you, then move a bit further left. Make it clear to them that squeezing in the lane is not an option. Once they are resigned to having to move at least partially into the adjacent lane to pass, they will almost always (no, not absolutely always) do so with plenty of passing space. And even for the rare one who passes you closely anyway, you're still way better off than the curb hugger, who gets passed closely much, much more often, and doesn't have the escape/safety space on the right that you have.

Once you do that - which amounts to simply riding a few more feet to the left in various situations - the hard part is knowing when to do it and having the confidence to be assertive about claiming your space - your vulnerability to suffer the consequences of this cyclist is mostly (not entirely) elminated. Now you've gotten it down to Brian's "since there is nothing [left] to actively prepare, there is no need to worry about these."

Think of it this way: the odds of being killed while riding are something like 400 in 10 million. 1 in 25,000 (0.004%). As I said earlier, that doesn't do a thing to make the victims' families feel better, but then again, the fact that it's similarly rare to win the lottery doesn't mean the winner doesn't get to keep the money. Nonetheless, I'm not putting my retirement income into lotto tickets.

And I'm going to keep cycling, because I love it and it's safe. A life ruled by fear of the extremely unlikely is hardly worth calling a life.

Actually, it is your argument, Brian, that concludes, "Since there is nothing to actively prepare, there is no need to worry about these.", which is said perfectly, at least with respect to the argument I was trying to convey in the OP of this thread. Bravo.

Yes sir, I did say that, but you neglect the point of the second part. Way to score a debate point by cherry picking.

The line between "avoidable" and "unavoidable" risk is fine, and cycling techniques can serve to inflate or deflate both the total risk and the percentage of each type of risk. Vehicular cycling techniques, in many situations, can serve to decrease the total risk at the expense of increasing the percentage of "unavoidable" risk. This is worth doing in most situations, but it is not for every circumstance or for every person. Choosing a cycling technique to use in a given situation is subject to the cyclist's judgement; bad drivers contribute greatly to this situation, since they are almost always in the "unavoidable" category (meaning that they require evasive action on the part of the cyclist to avoid and accident). If the unavoidable risk is very small in absolute terms, then doubling, say, the unavoidable risk is okay because doubling a small number results, again, in a small number. However, if driving habits in a certain situation or location make the unavoidable risk relatively high in absolute terms, then using vehicular cycling techniques may not be the best decision to make.

In any case, bad drivers are very much of a consideration and can be a serious threat; no question about this. Your gotchya quote is nothing more than an admittedly fatalistic realization of the fact that every cyclist faces some unavoidable risk; risk that cannot be avoided except by the fates. Fortunately, most of the time that risk is acceptable, given the relative risks of other activities or inactivity itself. Given that, once the decision is made on the road, it is not worth worrying about the unavoidable risk. However, in making decisions on the road, averting or mitigating unavoidable risk is very much a consideration.

Much of what vehicular cycling is about, is controlling, or "herding", traffic.

They're often not sure what to do, and look to us for cues... That's the source of much of our power, and our ability to herd traffic. Move left. Leave at least as much space on your right as you need preserved by passing motorists on your left. If that leaves just enough room on your left for some to still try to squeeze into the lane with you, then move a bit further left. Make it clear to them that squeezing in the lane is not an option.

Herding traffic? A bicyclist posesses the power to 'herd traffic???' The bike wields the power to herd bad drivers into safe vehicular operation????

This may make up a great personal riding ideology, but operating a bicycle under the assumption it posesses great inherent power to 'herd traffic' is a serious delusion.

A bicyclist does not 'herd' a dumptruck and trailer with their bicycle.

Herding traffic has got to be at LEAST as tough as herding cats...

Serge, your assumptions about riding in traffic (which you drive thru more than ride your bike), are laughable.

Great theory though. It shouldn't be the dogma to base your California bicycling advocacy on, or good reason to oppose bike lanes for all the bicyclists that may not share your 'herding cats' riding style.

VC-SC modification #1 "ride your bike as if you were herding traffic. Think herding cats."

Much of what vehicular cycling is about, is controlling, or "herding", traffic.

It could open up a whole new career field, though.

Wanted:

Bicycle riders to herd traffic through the city to assist in smooth flow of traffic and to decrease traffic jams. Excellent pay, exercise while you work. Contact Helmet Head at BFN

Is a gun in the hands of an idiot a serious threat? Of course it is and so are bad drivers. Ride defensively and you are doing the best you can to minimize their effect.

I suppose I control/herd car traffic. I'm visible, and in narrow lanes I'm "in the way" -- in the middle, so they see me and they have to go around me. So my action results in their action, which is a form of control. You could call it herding.

But I don't enjoy doing it, and it's not why I'm there. I'd rather just go where I want to go without being a pain in anyone's ass. And without anyone else being a pain in mine, for that matter. But now I'm really dreaming...

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.

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

That's true. But it's also true that if a cyclist is visible and in the right place, it's in a motorist's best interest to go around the cyclist with a safe amount of room. The motorist could instead choose to run over the cylist, but that might make a mess of their lovely car.

But, but, but, tragically, these types of accidents are largely preventable through cyclist behavior.

One of the most amazing differences I immediately noticed when I adopted vehicular cycling and a more assertive methodology when riding in traffic was how much more space motorists started giving me. I'm not talking a 10% change. I'm talking 1000%, or more. By that I mean that close passes went from a regular daily occurence to an almost never type of thing. And once I adopted a mirror and started using even finer adjustments in my lateral lane positioning in response to traffic approaching from the rear, it became an almost (but not quite) unheard-of occurence.

From "all the time" to "almost never" cannot be ignored.

I don't now for sure what happened in this case, but in all probability the cyclist was riding quite close to the edge or curb of the road, and the truck driver reasonably (for a non-cyclist, and even for many cyclists) interpreted that to mean that she was leaving the space in the lane to her left for others to use to pass her, including him. Now, the only time I ever do that is when the lane is sufficiently wide. But most cyclists keep to the side by habit, regardless of how narrow the lane is. In fact, the more narrow the lane, the more likely most are to hug the right edge. The reason I say "in all probability" that's what happened here, is because that's how the vast majority of cyclists behaves. And with CHP officers declaring that cyclists are legally obligated to stay out of the way of cars, and NY judges ruling that the purpose of bike lanes and side-of-the-road laws is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars, is it any wonder? I digress...

Much of what vehicular cycling is about, is controlling, or "herding", traffic. Most cyclists don't realize how much power we have in this respect. Our culture - and, yes, much of it reinforced by bike lanes, sorry - is that cyclists are supposed to stay out of the way of motorists. The result? "She apparently 'lost control of her bicycle and was thrown to the roadway and under the trailer,'". Tragedy.

Most cyclists, judging from how they behave, don't understand how they are perceived from behind by motorists. How it is natural for motorists to tend towards preserving a "symmetry of space" around the cyclist. If you leave one foot of space between you and the curb to your right, it's natural to assume that all the space you need on the left is also a foot. They're often not sure what to do, and look to us for cues... That's the source of much of our power, and our ability to herd traffic. Move left. Leave at least as much space on your right as you need preserved by passing motorists on your left. If that leaves just enough room on your left for some to still try to squeeze into the lane with you, then move a bit further left. Make it clear to them that squeezing in the lane is not an option. Once they are resigned to having to move at least partially into the adjacent lane to pass, they will almost always (no, not absolutely always) do so with plenty of passing space. And even for the rare one who passes you closely anyway, you're still way better off than the curb hugger, who gets passed closely much, much more often, and doesn't have the escape/safety space on the right that you have.

Once you do that - which amounts to simply riding a few more feet to the left in various situations - the hard part is knowing when to do it and having the confidence to be assertive about claiming your space - your vulnerability to suffer the consequences of this cyclist is mostly (not entirely) elminated. Now you've gotten it down to Brian's "since there is nothing [left] to actively prepare, there is no need to worry about these."
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.