sensationalism?

[Brian Ratliff]

I have absolutely no reason to believe that a BL stripe inside of a WOL makes it any easier to not inadvertently drift. For the driver who is actually looking out the windshield, the stripe on his side of the car, just to his left, is all that is required. The pavement to the right could go on for a hundred feet unmarked, and the attentive driver will still follow a straight path relative to the center or lane stripe to his left, if he's paying attention at all. And if he's not paying attention (which is the situation we're talking about), a stripe to the right won't matter either, because he's attenting to a distraction and not paying attention. The only exception to this might be at night when driving into oncoming headlight high beams, at which point the fog line or BL stripe to the right actually comes into play for guidance purposes. But such an extremely-poor-visibility exception is a separate issue, for that is not the type of situation we're talking about here.

Apparently I have reason to believe ;). But anyway. I find myself drifting to the right on a WOL simply because there is no bracketing by lane lines, even if I intend for my line to be next to the center line. Enough said. This is simply speculation on both our parts.

"...BL stripe inside of a WOL..." indeed. No wonder you figure that drifting motorists into an adjacent lane is normal and not worthy of criticism... if it is a bike lane that is. Anyway, if you've been keeping track, the motorist actually crossed the centerline and hit the cyclist on the other side of the street. The cyclist was riding correctly; in the right direction and in the correct lane position. This conversation is moot.

[Helmet Head]

Brian - no need to respond point by point. I'm so darn repetitive anyway... But please read the whole thing, then decide what is salient enough to respond to. Thanks.


HH: I don't have time for a point to point response, but just to say that a driver should not have to take "special precautions" to not drift around cyclists, especially if the cyclist is in a different lane than the driver. The driver has the responsibility to maintain their lane position without drifting, regardless of distractions. The driver should not have to see a cyclist or any other obstruction to know when to keep their line.
But whether we like it or not, whether they should or not, the reality is that drivers drift. Driver's do sometimes choose to take their eyes off the road in order to dial on their phones, change radio stations, wipe a child's mouth, unwrap a hamburger, take a bong hit, unhook a bra, choose another DVD, find the lipstick, etc. And while attending to these kinds of distractions, they sometimes drift into bike lanes or shoulders where cyclists that they did not notice are riding. There is no getting around that reality. It happens. And it will continue to happen for the foreseeable future.

Now you may want to fix this by changing the world. I prefer to address it by changing something I have much more control over: my own behavior. I want to use everything reasonably at my disposal, including using a more conspicuous lane position, to increase the probability that drivers approaching from behind are aware of my presence, and the earlier the better. I want them to be aware of me, so that they don't choose to take their eyes off the road to attend to a distraction. I want them to wait until they pass me. That's what I do. And I'm here to tell you that what I do works great. And I know it works great not because no one has drifted into me (the odds of that happening are so low anyway, it not happening to me would not be evidence of anything), but because I observe driver behavior behind me with a mirror. I observe their behavior when I ride in a traditional diffident manner - keeping to a fixed path off to the side and "out of their way", in the bike lane if there is one there; and I observe their behavior when I adopt a more vehicular method, using the vehicular traffic lane, and only moving aside temorarily in order to allow faster traffic to pass, when they have approached me close enough to be well aware of me.

I don't remember if you use a mirror, and I haven't taken the time to make note of all the subtle differences I observe when comparing the two methods, but I assure you, that the difference in their behavior in reaction to me, depending on which method I'm using, is nothing short of remarkable. You really know when they're aware of you, and when they're not. But until you experience it for yourself, you'll probably not believe me.


Either argument leads to the same conclusion, that the driver should not be given a pass on drifting into a separate lane of the road.

I agree they should not be given a pass. But my more immediate concern is not getting hit. All too many drivers, myself included, often treat an empty (or what we often assume to be an empty though it's not) bike lane to be "extra" pavement to the right, that we're normally not supposed to drive in, but sometimes do anyway. In particular, when choosing to attend to a distraction, it's very easy to choose to err on the side of drifting right onto the separately demarcated but unused pavement (be it a shoulder or bike lane), rather than to the left where there could be other vehicular traffic.


That said, I don't mean to say that there are not defenses against this type of accident. Being closer to the road, i.e. on the left side of the bike lane or in the traffic lane itself, and keeping the closing speed down by traveling with traffic rather than against is the best defense we have, and a very effective one at that, against distracted drivers approaching from the rear. But this does not absolve the motorist of their responsibilities.
Again, I completely agree that the motorist is legally and morally responsible to stay in his lane. But the fact that many motorists often don't stay in their lane (I would go so far as to say that probably no motorists, since they are human, always stay in their lane) makes it my practical responsibility to deal with it. I have tried your suggestions above, and find them marginally effective at best in terms of improving driver awareness of me (again by measuring their awareness of me in terms of their behavior through observing them in my rear-view mirror), as compared to the centerish primary riding position method I learned about from reading John Franklin's book Cyclecraft.


If distractions such as cell phones are causing accidents of the type we are discussing here, this problem needs to be attended to. Anything less is immoral.
I don't have time to wait for human nature to evolve such that humans are no longer prone to choosing to attend to distractions. Yes, we should discourage distractions, but the fact is, they're not going away by any signficant margin any time soon. I choose to deal with that reality, not ignore it.


Some will say that cyclists should stick with keeping other cyclists in line and teach other cyclists the best defense against dangerous driving. Of course, this should be done.

Good. That's all I'm doing.


But at the same time, we are not the ones driving two tons of metal powered by 200 horses. We are not licensed to ride a certain way because we are not piloting a machine capable of killing other people. Drivers are.

Therefore changing their behavior is ultimately their responsibility, not ours (except when we're drivers).


The primary duty of a driver (as delineated by the driver's license) is to pilot their car in a safe way. If something is allowed inside a car which is interferring with this duty, then that something needs to be removed. There is no such thing as convenience trumping duty.
Here's the thing. As you know, there is reality, and there is perception. What is in our minds is our perception of reality, a mere approximation, an abridged version and flawed facsimile of reality, if you will. This is natural. It is impossible to constantly be aware of every single detail out there. We must filter. We must choose what is relevant, and what is irrelevant. And we cannot rely on our conscious minds to do this filtering - it's way too slow. Whether we like it or not, it's our subconscious minds that decide what in reality is worth including in the butchered facsimile of reality to which we actually respond in our minds.

Now, get in the mind of a driver who is driving down an empty road with an empty bike lane. He has no idea that in reaching for a french fry 30 seconds from now, he will accidently knock the bag of fries off the passenger seat onto the floor. As he reaches for the next fry without taking his eyes off the road, his subconscious mind is processing the visual field in front of him. As he drives around another curve, up ahead a bike lane cyclist appears 500 feet ahead in his field of vision, but the driver does not notice him. Why? Because the driver's subconscious mind has filtered him out. It's like he's not even there. What's important is the driver's intended path - his lane. He has no intention of leaving his lane, so why be bothered by some cyclist up ahead outside of his lane? He reaches for another fry, again without taking his eyes off the road. But this is the fatal one. Oh crap! He quickly glances down for less than a second to assess the damage. Not too bad, a few fries came out of the bag, but most are still in there, though out of reach. He looks ahead again - the road is clear, and leans down below the dash to pick up the bag of fries. As he does so, a snag... his seat belt catches and prevents him from getting close enough, he sits back straight up to release the lock, glances (all clear) and goes right back down again... The amount of time he had to take his eyes off the road was longer than he initially anticipated. During the extra time, his vehicle drifted... He sensed it might drift, but he knew it was not long enough to drift all the way off the road, but just into the shoulder (he did not realize it was a bike lane, nor did it even occur to him that it might be occupied). Later, he is devastated. When he says he never even saw the cyclist, he's not lying. His subconsious mind never brought to his attention what was happening on the part of the road where the cyclist was riding...

Now please reconsider that paragraph with a slight twist. Note the sentence above that I highlighted in blue, and imagine the cyclist up ahead is using the Cyclecraft method, riding in the centerish primary riding position in the guy's traffic lane up ahead. I submit that the whole series of events that eventually lead to him drifting into the cyclist would be much less likely to happen, because this time the driver's subconscious mind would not filter out the cyclist, but would be sufficiently alarmed by his presence as being a potential issue to bring it to the attention of the driver's mind.

And you didn't anwer me before. How many cyclists have to die like this because of bike lanes and the false sense of security they bestow on so many cyclists, before you concede that there is something to my hypothesis? 10? 50? 500? How many?

[Helmet Head]

This conversation is moot.
Whether the issue we're discussing applies to the particular incident in this thread should not determine whether it is moot or not. Either it's valuable to reduce the chances of being inadvertently drifted into to use lane positioning to be more conspicuous to traffic approaching from behind after a gap, or it's not.

[noisebeam]

This is simply because you don't know your phone! ;) I have this problem as well, but not everybody does. People memorize differently, some are visual (they "see" the words on the list in their head) and some are audial (sp?)
I agree about not knowing the phone, but I know mine enough to be able to pick it up without looking and press the right answer button. But there are other distractions, the desire to see the number calling you before picking up, not having the phone handy, not being able to ignore the ring during a difficult traffic situation.
I don't think these are neccessarily enough to go over a threshold from distracting to dangerous, just potentials.
As to my memory, I don't know. I do know when I take those tests verbal vs. visual I fall in the >90% visual consistenly. But I don't mentally 'see' lists either. When my wife wants stuff for shopping I take in the context (for example what dinner will be or that she wants stuff for lunch at work) and then at the store the details fall into place when I think about what the need is.
The bottom line is that here we are thinking about the safety of cell phone driving and the potential ways it can go beyond an acceptable distraction to worse. But how many cell phone driver users do this? In my first list (second sentence above) of how answering a phone can be made more distracting, how many prepare ahead so this is not the case?
Al

[genec]

But as the driver sees the cyclist moving into the BL... doesn't the mind of the driver then "check him off" anyway. "Ah, no longer a hazard... now where are those fries... "

Along with "Good, that cyclist moved... just like they are supposed to... "

[genec]

I agree about not knowing the phone, but I know mine enough to be able to pick it up without looking and press the right answer button. But there are other distractions, the desire to see the number calling you before picking up, not having the phone handy, not being able to ignore the ring during a difficult traffic situation.
I don't think these are neccessarily enough to go over a threshold from distracting to dangerous, just potentials.
As to my memory, I don't know. I do know when I take those tests verbal vs. visual I fall in the >90% visual consistenly. But I don't mentally 'see' lists either. When my wife wants stuff for shopping I take in the context (for example what dinner will be or that she wants stuff for lunch at work) and then at the store the details fall into place when I think about what the need is.
The bottom line is that here we are thinking about the safety of cell phone driving and the potential ways it can go beyond an acceptable distraction to worse. But how many cell phone driver users do this? In my first list (second sentence above) of how answering a phone can be made more distracting, how many prepare ahead so this is not the case?
Al


I agree this is the key problem... not assigning a priority to driving over phone.

Every phone I know of will take a message... motorists must keep that in mind and not bother to fumble for the phone unless they are 100% sure that they can answer at that moment.

Otherwise... wait for a stop and then take care of it.

[closetbiker]

I just checked with ICBC, and in 1995, there were 95,000 motor vehicle collisions and in 2004, there were 49,000 motor vehicle collisions. Population went from 3.7 million to 4.2 million.

Cellphones while driving are bad, but I think this might be just a tempest in a tea pot.

[Dchiefransom]

Hmm, driver drifts into bike lane from another lane and we're again debating bike lanes. If the cyclist was taking the lane in a right lane and the driver drifted over from the left lane, it wouldn't be any different than drifting into a bike lane, and the cyclist would still be dead.

[buzzman]

so this afternoon I decide to do a quick 50 miler. As I go through the town of Concord I see a car pull a classic right hook on a cyclist coming in the opposite direction to my line of travel. The car had just passed the cyclist and yet acted as if he wasn't there. He yelled in a loud voice, "Thanks a lot". The woman driver jams on her brakes as if he came out of no where. I look at her face and she is leaning over the steering wheel and is talking on the phone and doesn't stop her conversation but looks at the cyclist as if to say, "Can't you see I'm on the phone, here!" He just rolls his eyes and weaves around her. Naturally, I thought of this thread.

But here's the kicker: about an hour later and about 10 miles away from this intersection, I'm looping home through the town of Weston and I'm on the through road where another road intersects and persons coming from that road must stop at the stop sign. I'm taking the whole lane because there are no cars on the road I am on, traveling at around 23mph, bright yellow jersey, yellow helmet, I'm 6'3" and kind of hard to miss and this car starts to pull out of the other road right in front of me. I yell a big, "NO!" and lo and behold IT'S THE SAME WOMAN! AND SHE'S STILL ON THE PHONE! She now had a teenaged girl passenger but same woman, same car, same cell phone, same startled look on her face- picture this icon with more hair- :eek: .

What was missing here was no bike lane was involved for either of these cyclists neither of whom was doing anything other than riding in what is referred to as a vehicular manner. What was the constant?- That woman and her stupid cell phone.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH: I get your drift. You are focusing on changing your own behavior and that is commendable. If I lived where you live, perhaps I would see your point of view better. I honestly don't see drivers drifting into bike lanes that often here. In fact, I would dare say I haven't seen it since I started commuting again this spring, starting in Feb. So I don't see where "driver drift" is that much of a problem in an area which is covered in bike lanes. But as you pointed out, we have different laws concerning bike lanes than does California. Here in Oregon, drivers are never allowed in the bike lane except where the bike lane line is broken, which only happens near intersections. As I understand, in California, drivers are taught to merge into the bike lane when preparing to turn off the main road. Here in Oregon, drivers cannot merge into the bike lane, only cross it. We set the bike lane up as a forbidden zone for drivers, and as a result, they seem not to drift into them nearly as much as you report.

As for advocacy, if the goal is to burn the candle, best to burn it at both ends. Us young-uns will tackle the bigger goals of changing driver behavior, since we will likely live long enough to see the results of our labor, while you grizzled old folk can teach all us young people how best to bicycle. The world is a big place, and while reading your post, I find that, while we have different focuses, probably because I am only a little over half your age, we hold very nearly the same views. You see, I tend to want to find permanent fixes for problems. My behavior as a cyclist is not a problem. I am predictable, assertive, vehicularly correct, and polite. The behaviors which are a problem are the behaviors of the drivers behind the wheel. Driver's behavior will eventually have to be changed if the conflicts that us cyclists see on the road are ever to mitigate. Because the behavior which needs to be changed is a cultural phenomena, the change will have to be a cultural change. I and my generation will likely see this change. You and your generation may well not. But we've got to start sometime, and that sometime might as well be now.

[closetbiker]

After the paper didn't print my letter, I decided to change tack and switch to the call for a cellphone law point and wrote,

After the paper didn't print my letter, I decided to change tack and switch to the call for a cellphone law and wrote,

For those who call for a new law to ban cell phone use while driving, I have news for you.

We already have a law against it. It's called, "driving without due care and attention".

Why people get up in arms about creating new laws when the problem is simply one of enforcement of existing laws mystifies me.

They printed 2 letters this morning, mine and 1 other. Wouldn't you know the second letter they printed was pretty close to what I wrote in my first letter.

Most readers out there have used a cellphone while driving and understand that doing so limits your ability to focus.

The response to this tragedy is the typical knee jerk reaction we all love here in B.C .

I believe it is very important to point out that cyclists should always ride with traffic, not against.

The chances of surviving a auto or bike incident are improved quite a bit.

[Helmet Head]

But as the driver sees the cyclist moving into the BL... doesn't the mind of the driver then "check him off" anyway. "Ah, no longer a hazard... now where are those fries... "
Maybe he'll forget about his presence a minute later, but not within the 3-6 second period it will take to pass the cyclist.


Along with "Good, that cyclist moved... just like they are supposed to... "
Nothing wrong with that. Drivers of slow moving vehicles should move aside temporarily to allow faster traffic to pass, when it's safe and reasonable for them to do so... and move right back to a more conspicuous position in the rightmost traffic lane as soon as the coast is clear. Of course, the conspicuity is not only important in terms of improving awareness of your presence by drivers approaching from behind, but, more importantly (in terms of preventing collisions), the more conspicuous position makes you less likely to not be noticed by drivers crossing your path (turning in and out of driveways, etc.).

[genec]

Nothing wrong with that. Drivers of slow moving vehicles should move aside temporarily to allow faster traffic to pass, when it's safe and reasonable for them to do so... and move right back to a more conspicuous position in the rightmost traffic lane as soon as the coast is clear. Of course, the conspicuity is not only important in terms of improving awareness of your presence by drivers approaching from behind, but, more importantly (in terms of preventing collisions), the more conspicuous position makes you less likely to not be noticed by drivers crossing your path (turning in and out of driveways, etc.).

Oh, thereby reinforcing The Notion... thus this driver and any others that see this type of "display" will always expect slower moving vehicles to move aside... in spite of the need to remain in a specific lane for destination positioning. IE why should I move to the far right in a lane at an intersection if I plan on going straight, or if there are hazards to my right (anywhere) or if I plan on turning left...

If I take a lane for any valid reason, why shouldn't motor vehicles simply slow down behind me, or change lanes... as they would for a cement truck or any other wide slow vehicle that may also be using a full lane? Why is there an expectation that I will move out of the way?

[Helmet Head]

Oh, thereby reinforcing The Notion... thus this driver and any others that see this type of "display" will always expect slower moving vehicles to move aside... in spite of the need to remain in a specific lane for destination positioning.
Not at all. I find observing them approach with a rear view mirror and issuing a slow/stop arm signal to let them know I know they are there and that I know what I'm doing to be amazingly effective in dissipating any expection on their part for me to move out of the way. As we move across the intersection, when it's safe and reasonable, I of course move aside. It's usually only a few seconds later. No problem.


If I take a lane for any valid reason, why shouldn't motor vehicles simply slow down behind me, or change lanes... as they would for a cement truck or any other wide slow vehicle that may also be using a full lane? Why is there an expectation that I will move out of the way?
Because it's safe and reasonable for you to move aside to facilitate their passing you...

While it's not safe and reasonable for a cement truck driver to move aside on a road with a standard width outside lane and no shoulder (there is no where for him to move), it is safe and reasonable for a cement truck driver to move aside on a road with a WOL and/or wide shoulder. And in those cases, especially on an uphill, the same expectation that exists for cyclists is there, for the exact same reasons.

[genec]

Not at all. I find observing them approach with a rear view mirror and issuing a slow/stop arm signal to let them know I know they are there and that I know what I'm doing to be amazingly effective in dissipating any expection on their part for me to move out of the way. As we move across the intersection, when it's safe and reasonable, I of course move aside. It's usually only a few seconds later. No problem.


What if you issued your signal and then didn't move out of the way... for any number of reasons... what then is the reaction of motorists?



Because it's safe and reasonable for you to move aside to facilitate their passing you...

While it's not safe and reasonable for a cement truck driver to move aside on a road with a standard width outside lane and no shoulder (there is no where for him to move), it is safe and reasonable for a cement truck driver to move aside on a road with a WOL and/or wide shoulder. And in those cases, especially on an uphill, the same expectation that exists for cyclists is there, for the exact same reasons.


But it may NOT be safe and reasonable for me to move... yet drivers still have this expectation... that is my point. They, the motorists, do not know if it is safe and reasonable for me... yet they often act as if it is my responsiblity to move, no matter what.

Motorists do not have the same expectation of us that they might have of any other vehicle... they EXPECT me to move without questioning that there might be a reason for me to be right where I am.

I simply suggest that your situation of being center biased and readily moving, reinforces the motorists' expectation that cyclists should get out of their way.

[Helmet Head]

What if you issued your signal and then didn't move out of the way... for any number of reasons... what then is the reaction of motorists?
Change lanes and pass me.


But it may NOT be safe and reasonable for me to move... yet drivers still have this expectation... that is my point.
So what?


Motorists do not have the same expectation of us that they might have of any other vehicle... they EXPECT me to move without questioning that there might be a reason for me to be right where I am.

So what?


I simply suggest that your situation of being center biased and readily moving, reinforces the motorists' expectation that cyclists should get out of their way.
Perhaps. Again, so what?

My concern with the prevalence of The Notion in our culture has almost nothing to do with drivers and how they treat us because it's so easy to manage and almost everything to do with potential cyclists and how the Notion keeps them from taking up cycling.

[genec]

Change lanes and pass me.


No lanes to change to...

So what?
So now their frustration level goes up... and impatient motorists may have thoughts along the lines of "bikes don't belong on my streets..."

So what?
Resultiing frustration leads to stupid actions on the motorist's part...


Perhaps. Again, so what?

My concern with the prevalence of The Notion in our culture has almost nothing to do with drivers and how they treat us because it's so easy to manage and almost everything to do with potential cyclists and how the Notion keeps them from taking up cycling.

Gee, perhaps you need to go back and review The Notion thread and the quote from the driver: "Bikes are supposed to get out of the way."

Certainly this had nothing to do with how I dealt with The Notion (as a cyclist) and had everything to do with the motorist's expectations. Which again, you reinforce by doing exactly what the motorist expects.

Try it the other way... riding in the center and holding your position... While the motorist may not understand, you may have a good reason to do just that... what then is the reaction from the motorist? You have every right to do just that... try it.