Have YOU "trained" any motorists?

[Helmet Head]

The key was my statement that 'cyclists are often overlooked, no matter how or where they ride,' and your response to it. This was straight outa the book btw. 'Cyclists are often overlooked, no matter how or where they ride. We should accept this as reality, and proceed from there. We should deal with reality as it is, not how we hope or wish it to be.' (78)

So it looks like you and VC and me are at an impasse before we can even get started into a discussion of the finer points.

Oh, well, I think one issue is the phrase, "often overlooked". Often overlooked? What do you mean by that? Seriously. For example, it has been years since the last time I was overlooked... Is that "often"? I'm always ready for it to happen (my motto is "trust but verify" - I never put myself in a situation in front of someone without first verifying that I'm not overlooked). I will say it used to happen much more often before I adopted "hardcore" VC lateral positioning in my riding. As I've said before, the difference in how I was treated (including in how less often I am now overlooked) is nothing short of amazing. But I'm aware that motorcyclists who basically use the same positioning are sometimes ("often"?) overlooked too, so I'm vigilant, and trust but verify.

So in the sense that motorcyclists are "often" overlooked, I would agree that bicyclists are "often" overlooked too (if that's what you mean). I would even say that given that bicyclists who generally use much less conspicuous lane positioning than do motorcyclists (i.e. the vast majority of bicyclists), they are probably overlooked significantly more often than are motorcyclists. But for someone like me who is quite assertive with his lane positioning, overlooking probably happens about as often as for motorcyclists. But, regardless of how we position ourselves, just like good motorcyclists, we should always be ready to be overlooked. Being ever vigilant is fundamental to vehicular operations, and particularly critical to those of us in the cageless class. The vigilant mentality you so eloquently describe and promote in your book is therefore fundamental to VC, and, if anything, is contrary to the mindless thinking that tends to be induced by bikeways and craved by the bikeway advocates whose views and attitudes about traffic cycling VC advocates tend to find to be naive and dangerous.


It's not so much the outward technique but the mindset behind it that I find dangerous: hopeful, naive, innocent. I shake my head in disbelief at your 'instant turn.'

Hey, it's not MY instant turn, it's Forester's. And even though I just attended an LCI seminar learning how to teach it, I cringe about it too (aren't we supposed to be teaching how to avoid getting into a situation where an instant turn is needed?). I will say this, a few years ago, before I learned about VC, EC or instant turns, or the danger of passing stopped traffic on the right at speed, I was in a bike lane passing congested/stopped traffic that was on my left. It was a downhill and I was moving at about 25 mph, when suddenly a woman pulled her minivan out of the congestation to turn across the bike lane onto a sidestreet right in front of me. Instincts honed from childhood took over and somehow I managed to, well, turn instantly. I remember that as soon as the incident was over I had no recollection of what had happened. One moment I was on one street with a van right in front of me, the next moment I was on the side street, stopped next to the van (my screaming caused her to realize what was going on, and she stopped on the sidestreet to make sure I was okay). My left shoulder touched the right side of her van towards the end of the turn, but that was it. I never did figure out exactly how I managed to turn so sharply and tightly. I had the adrenaline shakes, that's for sure.

Anyway, ideally, both your vigilant urban cyclist and Forester's vehicular cyclist would never allow themselves to be put in a situation (like I did) where an instant turn might be necessary. But, you-know-what happens, and I suppose it can't hurt to have some practice of that technique in one's tool kit. Are you opposed to it? What exactly is making your head shake in disbelief? I have heard of cyclists being right hooked by a motorist in the adjacent lane make a hard right blatantly illegal hook right turn. So it's possible for even the most vigilant among us to end up having to resort to emergency maneuvers.

Finally, as to your main point, which appears to be in your opinion that Forester, I and other VC advocates evoke a mindset that you find dangerous: hopeful, naive, innocent, I can only tell you that I believe you're still misunderstanding something. For you to be right, our mindset would have to lead to careless behavior. Instead, what I and other VC advocates recognize in ourselves is the same vigilance you emphasize in your book.

We all recognize that cyclists are relatively easy to overlook, and that's a significant factor in many bike-car collisions. There are two basic approaches to deal with this problem. One is to not rely on being seen (the invisible cyclist approach). Another is to try to be conspicuous to make it less likely to be overlooked, and not rely on being seen without verifying that you are seen, and always be prepared to be overlooked (I call this "trust, but verify).

Bright clothing and lights/reflectors at night are generally recognized ways to make ourselves more conspicuous.

As far as preparing to be overlooked, the uncontroversial aspect is the vigilance mentality you emphasize so much in your book, but which is naturally honed and developed by most (all?) experienced cyclists. Perhaps Forester and other VC advocates make the error of taking this for granted, but I assure you, vigilance and the awareness that we might be overlooked at any time is ever present in our thinking.

What VC brings to the table on top of all that (not in place of) is the role of lateral positioning in helping with the main issue: making ourselves much less likely to be overlooked. VC also adds emergency maneuvers (instant turn, quick stop) to the preparations for being overlooked (when all else fails).

In other words, you seem to think that

UC (Urban Cycling a la Hurst) = VC + vigilance, or VC = UC - vigilance.

Is that fair?

Whereas, I believe this is more accurate:

VC = UC + (conspicuous lateral positioning) + (emergency maneuvers), or, UC = VC - (conspicuous lateral positioning) - (emergency maneuvers).

But if you continue to insist that vehicular cyclists somehow utilize and/or promote a mindset or philosophy that is "hopeful, naive, innocent" with respect to cyclist vulnerability or anything else, or believe that vehicular cyclists somehow discount the fact that cyclists are often overlooked (in the sense that motorcyclists are often overlooked, and even more often for those who use inconspicuous lateral positioning), you will only prove that you continue to misunderstand vehicular cyclists and our mindset. And that would be a shame, for that will mean your 2nd edition will probably contain the same errors in how you portray vehicular cycling and cyclists that exist in the 1st edition, and in your posts here.

[Roody]

The key was my statement that 'cyclists are often overlooked, no matter how or where they ride,' and your response to it. This was straight outa the book btw. 'Cyclists are often overlooked, no matter how or where they ride. We should accept this as reality, and proceed from there. We should deal with reality as it is, not how we hope or wish it to be.' (78)

So it looks like you and VC and me are at an impasse before we can even get started into a discussion of the finer points.

It's not so much the outward technique but the mindset behind it that I find dangerous: hopeful, naive, innocent. I shake my head in disbelief at your 'instant turn.'

Robert

If it's true that "cyclists are often overlooked," why is that? And in what circumstances does this happen?

I really don't feel "overlooked" when I'm riding. The circumstance when I do feel most likely to be overlooked is when a motorist is waiting in a driveway or cross street to turn (right or left) onto my street. In this event, I pull further to the left in the lane. This puts me into the area where the driver is most likely to be looking, and it also gives me more space/time to react in the unlikely event that I am overlooked.

I think this argument between VC and defensive (or paranoid) riding is way overblown. On a practical level, the two "mindsets" are easily combined. I most often ride in a predictable and legal manner like other traffic, but I am still alert to the possibility that others will not ride or drive so well, so I maintain a "paranoid" respect and alertness for other traffic. I would imagine that both RobertHurst and Helmet Head do the same, since both have survived for a long time.

[Helmet Head]

If it's true that "cyclists are often overlooked," why is that? And in what circumstances does this happen?

I really don't feel "overlooked" when I'm riding. The circumstance when I do feel most likely to be overlooked is when a motorist is waiting in a driveway or cross street to turn (right or left) onto my street. In this event, I pull further to the left in the lane. This puts me into the area where the driver is most likely to be looking, and it also gives me more space/time to react in the unlikely event that I am overlooked.

I think this argument between VC and defensive (or paranoid) riding is way overblown. On a practical level, the two "mindsets" are easily combined. I most often ride in a predictable and legal manner like other traffic, but I am still alert to the possibility that others will not ride or drive so well, so I maintain a "paranoid" respect and alertness for other traffic. I would imagine that both RobertHurst and Helmet Head do the same, since both have survived for a long time.
Exactly. Yet Robert seems to think that not only is there a difference in attitude/mindset about our tendency to be overlooked, but that it is fundamental: "So it looks like you and VC and me are at an impasse before we can even get started into a discussion of the finer points."

[Helmet Head]

One thing is for sure, Robert can write circles around all of us. Look how clearly and concisely he makes his views known, in so few words. I can only dream...

[genec]

The funny part that I find about the whole "trust but verify" and even encroaching into the innocence of VC where position some how equals visibility, is that frankly unless you actually tap the shoulder of drivers, and ask them, you have no way of knowing if they have really seen you.

Following eyes do not really mean that you registered in their minds. Motorists can be damn blind to anything that does not fit the profile of a large boxy object... and even then can be quite blind to the very obvious as many motor vehicle accidents can attest to...

[Helmet Head]

I never verify that someone sees me solely based on whether they're looking at me, Gene. By far the best indicator is what they're doing with their vehicle, but when they actually nod or wave to me, that's verification too. There is no such thing as 100% verification. Anyone might be a hit man hired to kill you, and is just fooling you into thinking that he is cooperating with you. But nothing in life is 100%, and you have to make do with what you can as best as you can. That's what I do.

I will never merge in front of someone who has not obviously yielded the ROW for me to do so, for example.

Another example: you're crossing an intersection with oncoming traffic that is about to turn left. You're cautious. They look at you. You trust, but have not verified yet. Indeed, they start turning left in front of you. Suddenly, their eyebrows pop up and they hit the brakes. Now you have verified... and proceed.

Sometimes you just can't verify to a reasonable degree, that's true. At those times extra vigilance, space and a Plan B must be utilized. Luckily, the times when reliance on trust that is critical is rare, and the times when that critical trust cannot be verified with reasonable certainty is even rarer.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Sometimes you just can't verify to a reasonable degree, that's true. At those times extra vigilance, space and a Plan B must be utilized. Luckily, the times when reliance on trust that is critical is rare, and the times when that critical trust cannot be verified with reasonable certainty is even rarer.
What a load of inane vacuities! WTF is "extra" vigilance? Critical trust reliance? Oh Puhleeze!

Train yourself to keep your fingers off the keyboard when you wish to issue blather.

Here's some ABC's. Read some useful phrases that actually have some merit.
http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/printer/abc.html

[Helmet Head]

What a load of inane vacuities! WTF is "extra" vigilance? Critical trust reliance? Oh Puhleeze!

Oh, stop your yapping already. Your remind me of an annoying toy poodle.

What I meant by "extra vigilance" is being especially careful with regard to a particular driver (where verification of whether they see and understand what you're doing cannot be established).

By "critical trust reliance" I meant relying on trust that is critical to your safety.

I thought this was clear from the context in which I used these admittedly cumbersome terms, but I guess not. Anyway, I'm not a writer! Give me a break.

[sbhikes]

Extra vigilance is yet another hack for a broken system.

I'll bet you anything that if you were to follow Forester stealthily around so he didn't know he was being watched you'd see all kinds of things you believe never happens to him.

By the way, we are overlooked when it comes to funding, infrastructure (parking anyone?) and roadway design.

[Helmet Head]

Extra vigilance is yet another hack for a broken system.
Your belief that it is another hack is more evidence about your lack of understanding about safe behavior in traffic.

You're stopped and ready to go straight at a four-way stop, it's your turn to go, but the person to your right that you're about to move in front of, though he has stopped, has not looked left yet. He's probably not going to go, but you maybe he will. What do you do? Sit and wait until he looks your way, or do you proceed cautiously, with extra vigilance focused on him?

The fact is, we have a transportation system with human beings traveling independentally who are going from unique starting points to unique destinations, all in two dimensions. Paths cross. There is no way around this. The fact that so many people get to where they are going safely and efficiently is amazing. It's not a broken system. It's an amazing system, and you don't appreciate it at all. You take it for granted, but you don't make the effort to learn how it works.

[KnhoJ]

Your belief that it is another hack is more evidence about your lack of understanding about safe behavior in traffic.

You're stopped and ready to go straight at a four-way stop, it's your turn to go, but the person to your right that you're about to move in front of, though he has stopped, has not looked left yet. He's probably not going to go, but you maybe he will. What do you do? Sit and wait until he looks your way, or do you proceed cautiously, with extra vigilance focused on him?

The fact is, we have a transportation system with human beings traveling independentally who are going from unique starting points to unique destinations, all in two dimensions. Paths cross. There is no way around this. The fact that so many people get to where they are going safely and efficiently is amazing. It's not a broken system. It's an amazing system, and you don't appreciate it at all. You take it for granted, but you don't make the effort to learn how it works.
This sort of "vigilant trust" approach sounds exactly like my own philosophy, whether bicycling, walking, unicycling, kickbiking, or even occasionally driving:

Never, ever, trust a box jockey.

If I make a mistake, I lose. If a driver makes a mistake, I lose. So I take responsibility to keep an "out" option available at all times, and take a safer alternative when necessary.
For example, if I'm about to walk past a driver waiting to turn into traffic, I'll walk all the way around the back of that car. That driver probably won't break my knees, but a few seconds' delay is worth it to me, and a convenience for the driver as well.

And now for something completely different.... Just a humble suggestion, but I believe that even a man such as yourself would have more fun down here socializing with the rest of the group rather than sniping at us from those lofty heights! I bet we all must look like toy poodles from waaaaay up there, but we're really full size humans, I promise. We won't nip at your ankles.:D

[Bekologist]

mr heads 'trust but verify' spiel, a meaningless sound bite he vainly tries to incubate with meaning, comes off like the method it actually is, Don't trust, yield anyway. he monitors his mirrors incessantly for cars yielding or not - he doesn't trust them to see him, regardless, and therefore he rides in the middle of the lane, and then, if it is clear the car is not going to slow or pass, will yield anyway.

[RobertHurst]

Oh, well, I think one issue is the phrase, "often overlooked". Often overlooked? What do you mean by that? Seriously. For example, it has been years since the last time I was overlooked... Is that "often"?

HH, that statement leads me to question your practical experience as a cyclist. You talk a big game, but how much do you actually ride? I ask because during a typical day for me I am out riding 5-6 hours in heavy traffic and tend to be obviously overlooked at least once or twice per shift (riding in an overtly vehicular fashion, conspicuous central positioning and all that). These are the little momentitos that make or break my day, week, life. Everything else is just window dressing.

When the Moment of Truth comes, some will be ready, and some will be surprised. It seems to me if you're so impressed with the magical ability of VC/EC to keep you out of these situations in the first place, you're setting yourself up for a big surprise. That's why I shake my head in disbelief at the 'instant turn.' It seems like a whole new category of 'too little, too late.'


As far as preparing to be overlooked, the uncontroversial aspect is the vigilance mentality you emphasize so much in your book, but which is naturally honed and developed by most (all?) experienced cyclists. Perhaps Forester and other VC advocates make the error of taking this for granted, but I assure you, vigilance and the awareness that we might be overlooked at any time is ever present in our thinking.

What VC brings to the table on top of all that (not in place of) is the role of lateral positioning in helping with the main issue: making ourselves much less likely to be overlooked. VC also adds emergency maneuvers (instant turn, quick stop) to the preparations for being overlooked (when all else fails).

In other words, you seem to think that

UC (Urban Cycling a la Hurst) = VC + vigilance, or VC = UC - vigilance.

Is that fair?


Every experienced VC-indoctrinated cyclists may ride with a vigilant mindset--that is what actual experience does to a person after all--but that does not mean vigilance is taught in the EC program. In fact, vigilance and defensive driving 101 as you call it are AFTERTHOUGHTS in EC/VC, at best. The first time I read Effective Cycling I was dismayed by the glaring lack of defensive ideology. If anything, it's an anti-defensive mindset that Forester teaches. There is NO mention or even hint of defensive driving/cycling in the VC principle or in his five sub-principles of traffic cycling. None. What he says is that if you follow these principles, then everything will pretty much take care of itself, like magic. And for those extremely rare instances when things do not take care of themselves, we'll throw in an 'instant turn' for ya. Blows my mind. To say that vigilance is 'implied' in EC is nothing but a wish sandwich. If anything is implied, it's that true vigilance is only really necessary for those who would shirk the principles.

What chapter was 'Anticipating Motorist Mistakes' in EC? Chapter thirty-something? It should be chapter Numero Uno. See, the priorities are completely jacked.

When the Moment of Truth hits, some will be ready and some will be surprised. That's all that matters, really. Everything else is just so much chitter-chatter.

So basically I see the Art of UC as introducing defensive driving ideology where it has been conspicuously absent.

Robert

[Bekologist]

The fact is, we have a transportation system with human beings traveling independentally who are going from unique starting points to unique destinations, all in two dimensions...... It's an amazing system, and you don't appreciate it at all. You take it for granted, but you don't make the effort to learn how it works.


I don't know who this holier than thou, 'talking head' armchair bicyclist thinks he is, but his lofty perch is a saccharine fools nest. I don't know anymore if i should laugh, or cry for the fella. what a presumptous idiot.

I'd lay money on a bet head drove by that accident he and gene talked about in the last page. I too, share robert hurst's doubts about mr heads' actual cycling time or seasoning.

my suggestion for alternate thread title - Have you been "Tolerated" by any motorists?

[MikeR]

Does this happen to anyone else? What are your experiences?This happens to me all the time. I always take control of any situation, and try to communicate to the driver. When I move over for them to pass, I wave a thanks and almost always get a wave back. In fact I have gotten a wave even when I did not wave a 'thanks'.

The drivers around here appreciate that I take control and seem more comfortable with me in that position. I think this conveys a confidence and dependability that makes them feel that they can trust me to not do anything unpredictable, and that therefore I belong on the road.

[MikeR]

Exactly. Now, consider that probably more than 99% of cyclists ride improperly, and therefore generate bad education, and you can hopefully begin to understand what the root problem is.EXACTLY! I took the "Effective Cycling Course". I am so impressed with it that I think adult cyclists should be licensed and should have to take a course like this to get a license. (no flames. please)

[Bekologist]

thats great, mike. Yesterday, on the way home i used the slowhand signal in a narrow outside lane beside some parked cars as cars in both lanes approached to overtake me; i got the close, agressive pass, and the driver began to berate me at the stop because I wasn't being 'courteous' to him driving behind me...he accused my riding 3 1/2 feet from the car doors and my hand out as being 'passive aggressive' to him.

these saccharine, feelgood riding methods of 'wave and educate' are artifices of the utopian bicyclists' perfect world; drivers do not all respond to these ersatz training techniques with wallyworld 'gheewizzness', happy smiles and waves of adknowledgement.

it sounds like there's a lot of bicycling going on in the armchairs of lala land.

[TRaffic Jammer]

thats great, mike. Yesterday, on the way home i used the slowhand signal in a narrow outside lane beside some parked cars as cars in both lanes approached to overtake me; i got the close, agressive pass, and the driver at began to berate me at the stop because I wasn't being 'courteous' to him driving behind me...he accused my riding 3 1/2 feet from the car doors and my hand out as being 'passive aggressive' to him.

these saccharine, feelgood riding methods of 'wave and educate' are artifices of the utopian bicyclists' perfect world; drivers do not all respond to this ersatz 'training' technique with wallyworld 'gheewizzness' and happy smiles and waves of adknowledgement.

it sounds like there's a lot of bicycling going on in the armchairs of lala land behind rose colored glasses.

^^+1^^ For the most part around here, I've had limited success with taking the lane here in Toronto. Just don't try it a rush hour unless you are prepared for combat of some sort. Drivers' (generally) see ANYTHING that impedes their flow (actual or percieved) as an affront to the their God given right to barrell down the street with no regard for anything else. If I were to try the Smile and Wave system I'd never have both hands on the bars for all the flippin' cars. I prefer to keep my hands in control of my ride and not wiggling fingers at the folks behind me. If I'm in front and there isn't room to pass, then just wait a damned second, it's really simple courteousy. Just the same way as I will move over to accomidate a car wanting to pass if the road is skinny(construction/summer in toronto :lol:). If it's so thin it's totally dangerous/one lane from two I'll get in front of the car and bust a nut past the construction and then get back over to the curb lane.

We do have as much rights to the road as the drivers' and having to over compensate to ensure our survival is still IMO silly, when it really is driver education that needs to be addressed. You can have all the road safety whats-it's, but if the driver isn't going to respect you as an individual on the road then you're screwed. I'd be more inclided to teach people riding how to react to dangerous situations and what to watch for than waving at drivers "here I am, please don't kill me"

REMEMBER I am speaking of city riding not out on the road riding.

[bmclaughlin807]

I only know for a fact that I've trained one motorist.... taught him to think twice about running red 'left turn' lights... but I did so in my monster of a gas-guzzling, environment killing, '79 Blazer 4x4 (the one with no front grill, and a spray can paint job!)

He nearly hit me the first time I saw him, I was on my Bike... he flipped me off as he went by inches from my front tire (Yes, I saw him, and managed to stop in time...)

The second time I ran into this guy I was in my truck, I slowed down seeing him coming, even though the light was changing to green (I could see the red lights for the crossroad), and he turned in front of me... then came to a complete stop, because of a bus stopped just the other side of the intersection... I hit the brakes, stopping about 10 feet from his car, he's looking right at me with this pompous look on his face, when I shrugged at him like 'WTF?', he flips me off. So I stomp on the gas, spinning all 4 31" tires on my truck.... you should have seen the look on his face! He scooted right up behind the bus, and I cleared his back bumper by about 6".


A week later, again on my bike, I see the same guy come up to the same intersection... WAY too fast (as usual) .... this time, when the light turns red, he slams his breaks, and skids to a stop, only about a foot over the white line. I gave him a friendly wave, but don't think he saw me... he was too busy fuming about not making the light.

Lesson learned? Be careful about running red lights, there may be a maniac in a truck that could drive THROUGH your car and only suffer minimal damage coming from the other direction!!!

[Helmet Head]

For example, it has been years since the last time I was overlooked...

HH, that statement leads me to question your practical experience as a cyclist. You talk a big game, but how much do you actually ride?
First, don't be influenced by Bekologist. He lives in Seattle, I live in San Diego. He has no clue about me. Genec is a better source; he knows me. We've taken LAB's Road 2 course together, and been on a group ride together. My cycling experience spans decades (born in '61, cycling for transportation and recreation is I was 7) and is varied, but does not compare to that of a messenger's. FWIW, in the last 5+ years, I've been regularly commuting about 6 miles each way along a relatively "challenging" hilly route that includes at least 13 intersections with traffic signals. The route is mostly along major urban/suburban arterials with 35-45 mph speed limits. One of my left turns is at an intersection where almost all other bike commuters do a 2-step left. Another stretch includes a freeway interchange crossing and 6 lanes of 45 mph speed limit traffic (actual: 45-55 mph) that most cyclists avoid by using a detour along a parallel route that is a designated "bike route". In addition to my commuter mileage, I try to get 50-100 miles in recreationally per week. There are many cyclists who ride many more miles and many more hours than I do. However, I do ride enough to have plenty of opportunities to be "overlooked". I know that because while I used to practice vigilance without "assertive conspicuous VC lane positioning", I was overlooked regularly along the same routes where I am now almost never overlooked.

Having said that, perhaps we're using different definitions of "overlooked". I assume you mean a situation where someone violates, or almost violates, a cyclist's right of way because, at least apparently, the cyclist was not seen. But maybe what you're talking about is something different and does happen to me more often. Can you give me some examples of how you've been overlooked recently?


It seems to me if you're so impressed with the magical ability of VC/EC to keep you out of these situations in the first place, you're setting yourself up for a big surprise.
I believe there may be some merit (don't take this as a concession, however) to the argument that EC and so-called "VC rhetoric" does not put enough direct emphasis on the need for cyclists to put a higher priority on being vigilant, but when you presume to know what goes on in Forester's head, my head or in the head of any vehicular cyclist while cycling in traffic in terms of our readiness, or lack thereof, to be overlooked, you're venturing out into an area of pure baseless speculation, and your assertions on this issue here and in this book are unwarranted. It's a fair question (I believe almost any question is fair), but the leap to the affirmative is where my issue with your assumptions about vehicular cyclists' mindsets lies.

Every experienced VC-indoctrinated cyclists may ride with a vigilant mindset--that is what actual experience does to a person after all--but that does not mean vigilance is taught in the EC program.
This seems to me to be a song of a different tune. It never seemed missing to me, but now that you bring it up, I will have to review the book and training materials (although I just went through a seminar, I have not been officially certified yet, and of course have not prepared for nor taught a class yet). I will say that the need for vigilance is implied in many aspects of EC training. Yes, the "quick turn" has also struck me as "too little, too late", but executing one certainly saved me from probably serious injury in the incident with the van I relayed earlier. More importantly, the EC training about avoiding passing on the right in the first place, or at least doing it slowly and with extreme caution when you do do it, is all but blatant about the need to be vigilant (and, had I been following it in my incident, I would have had no need to execute a quick turn to avoid a crash). Anyway, even if it were true that there is little if any emphasis on vigilance in EC training, that would not necessarily imply that vehicular cyclists tend to ride with insufficient vigilance, by any measure.


So basically I see the Art of UC as introducing defensive driving ideology where it has been conspicuously absent.
As I've said before, your writing on cyclist self-responsibility and the need for vigilance is the best I've encountered. And I will admit that EC does not have the same direct emphasis on the problem of being overlooked as does your book, or motorcyclist training for that matter. However, I do think there needs to be a balance, because fear of being overlooked and hit can lead to deferential behavior and positioning in traffic that makes one more likely to be overlooked and hit. I suppose the correct approach ultimately depends on the student. Those who are overtly bold (perhaps young guys) may indeed benefit from more vigilance emphasis, while those who are hyper alert may need more training on the important role of more conspicuous lane positioning.

But your claims that vehicular cyclists like myself are not defensive in their personal riding is akin to claiming that anyone who has gone through regular driver training but not explicit "defensive driving" is not a defensive driver.

[Helmet Head]

I'd lay money on a bet head drove by that accident he and gene talked about in the last page. I too, share robert hurst's doubts about mr heads' actual cycling time or seasoning.
How much, big talker? I have about a dozen witnesses to my showing up at the meeting on my bike. Also I would have been late (stuck in stopped traffic) had I not been on my bike...

[Bekologist]

my laying odds on helmet heads driving was based soley on his driving habits he proudly admits to in here regularily. Head admitted earlier in the year not a single advocate showed up to one of his club meet on bikes.

I figured it was a group named "the armchair wheelmen club" or someting like dat. I loved his "driving my RV as if it were a bicycle" post from a couple of months ago, that was a classic! I should dig that one up for his 'good posts' thread...

And I doubt my considerations of his lack of realistic traffic awareness affects Mr. Hursts opinion of his sophmoric road savvy.

"Just smile and waggle your intent in their general direction and all the drivers, yield, wave and smile right back..." is about the most unrealistic view on traffic cycling in America I HAVE EVER HEARD OF, head. (it's so evocative of Zero Mostel and his Bialystock and Bloom motto, 'Smile, and the whole world smiles with you..." sheer and utter comedic genius!)

Head is not training motorists as much as fooling himself into some ersatz box of his own illusory designs. "Have you been TOLERATED by any motorists today?" is more apropos.

[CommuterRun]

I don't "train" motorists any more than they "train" me. We share the roads and interact as required.

On a couple of my commuting routes I have a couple of sections comprised of two lane, NOL, no paved shoulder, no passing zone, series of blind curves, 45 mph speed limit. I have found that in taking the center of the right lane and using a slow/stop hand signal for motorists coming up behind me, very few will pass until I'm far enough around the curve(s) to have the sight lines and determine if it's safe for them to pass. If it is, I'll wave them on around. Most will change lanes and pass at this point. Some will absolutely not pass until they have the sight lines (trust but verify?).
This is very much what HH describes in the OP and I very often get the same responses of smile and wave, or at least an acknowledging nod.

Sure, there are some pinhead motorists, but there are pinhead cyclists, too. And pinheads in every other group of people you can name.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

EXACTLY! I took the "Effective Cycling Course". I am so impressed with it that I think adult cyclists should be licensed and should have to take a course like this to get a license. (no flames. please)
Why not? You think your proposals don't stink?
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/flamethrow.gif

[RobertHurst]

First, don't be influenced by Bekologist. He lives in Seattle, I live in San Diego. He has no clue about me. Genec is a better source; he knows me. We've taken LAB's Road 2 course together, and been on a group ride together. My cycling experience spans decades (born in '61, cycling for transportation and recreation is I was 7) and is varied, but does not compare to that of a messenger's. FWIW, in the last 5+ years, I've been regularly commuting about 6 miles each way along a relatively "challenging" hilly route that includes at least 13 intersections with traffic signals. The route is mostly along major urban/suburban arterials with 35-45 mph speed limits. One of my left turns is at an intersection where almost all other bike commuters do a 2-step left. Another stretch includes a freeway interchange crossing and 6 lanes of 45 mph speed limit traffic (actual: 45-55 mph) that most cyclists avoid by using a detour along a parallel route that is a designated "bike route". In addition to my commuter mileage, I try to get 50-100 miles in recreationally per week. There are many cyclists who ride many more miles and many more hours than I do. However, I do ride enough to have plenty of opportunities to be "overlooked". I know that because while I used to practice vigilance without "assertive conspicuous VC lane positioning", I was overlooked regularly along the same routes where I am now almost never overlooked.

HH, I wasn't reacting to Mr. Bekologist, but to your astounding statement that you go years between incidents of being overlooked by a motorist. I think the only way this could be possible is if you don't ride very much. You concede that motorcyclists must get overlooked about as often as cyclists who ride vehicularly--do you really think regular motorcyclists go years between these incidents?

Having said that, perhaps we're using different definitions of "overlooked". I assume you mean a situation where someone violates, or almost violates, a cyclist's right of way because, at least apparently, the cyclist was not seen. But maybe what you're talking about is something different and does happen to me more often. Can you give me some examples of how you've been overlooked recently?

Sure. The most common, as Roody notes, is the driver at a stop sign attempting to cross the street I'm on. They are in glance-and-dash mode. If you ride a ton you may notice as I have that drivers across the street at stop signs on the left are less likely to notice a rider approaching than drivers at stop signs on the right. I think this might have something to do with the position of the driver in the vehicle, looking past passengers, at an angle through the windshield, dirt and glare, whereas the driver on the right side has a clear shot out the side window, and the cyclist approaching from that side is more likely to be silhouetted against a clear background. I also suspect that if we could accurately trace the origins of these 'overlookings' we might find that the view of the cyclist is occasionally blocked or partially blocked at the critical moment by the sizable door pillars of modern automobiles--next time you're driving a car take stock of all the physical conditions that could affect your vision of a relatively small cyclist on the road. But the most important factor has to be the driver him/herself, they don't want to stop, they simply want to glance quickly to see if there is a workable gap between vehicles and shoot across, and they are not thinking about the possibility of bikes in the road. Happens all the damn time with infinite variations. The glance-and-dash is traffic's middle name.

In addition to these I have recently experienced the crank-left. This is the driver on the right side, either parallel parked or stuck in a line of stopped traffic, who takes a look in the rear-view, cranes the neck around a bit then stomps the gas and cranks-left into the adjacent lane. Oops, dude on a bike. Driver makes face like The Scream. Like the stop-sign glancers, these are usually pretty easy for a watchful cyclist to avoid.

Then there are the right-turners, and the glance-and-run pedestrians. It's been a few weeks since I had to deal with a blind left turner, but these are the worst. There is more potential for harm from a left turner due to the speed they tend to carry and the angle of attack. For this reason I believe remaining hyper-aware of potential left-turning vehicles and their potential vectors is probably the most critical task facing the cyclist in traffic. When the crazed left-turner comes down on you, it can feel like they're gunning for you intentionally, because they might as well be.

(Actually left-turners aren't the worst brand of overlookers. The worst are the drivers who overlook a cyclist in their lane and hit them from behind. This is extremely rare compared to the turning/crossing incidents above, but it does happen. My own girlfriend is still recovering from a broken back caused by just this sort of 'didn't-see-ya' collision (yes, HH, she was riding well out away from the curb), and she is (and I am) simply lucky she wasn't killed.)

There are an endless amount of scenarios where cyclists are overlooked by motorists. The good news is that the most damaging types of incidents are the least likely to happen. And at least they're looking for something. You'll recall that in the collision described in ze book the driver didn't look at all.


I believe there may be some merit (don't take this as a concession, however) to the argument that EC and so-called "VC rhetoric" does not put enough direct emphasis on the need for cyclists to put a higher priority on being vigilant, but when you presume to know what goes on in Forester's head, my head or in the head of any vehicular cyclist while cycling in traffic in terms of our readiness, or lack thereof, to be overlooked, you're venturing out into an area of pure baseless speculation, and your assertions on this issue here and in this book are unwarranted. It's a fair question (I believe almost any question is fair), but the leap to the affirmative is where my issue with your assumptions about vehicular cyclists' mindsets lies.

It's hardly baseless speculation, HH. I presume to know what's going on in your head and Forester's head based only on your own words and his own words. I can't read your minds, but I can read your words. And in your words I find a dangerously rosey opinion of VC's power to keep riders safe, simply through predictable riding and conspicuous positioning, and a dangerously rosey opinion of traffic in general. Sort of a Platonic/Aristotelean music of the spheres thing.


As I've said before, your writing on cyclist self-responsibility and the need for vigilance is the best I've encountered. And I will admit that EC does not have the same direct emphasis on the problem of being overlooked as does your book, or motorcyclist training for that matter. However, I do think there needs to be a balance, because fear of being overlooked and hit can lead to deferential behavior and positioning in traffic that makes one more likely to be overlooked and hit. I suppose the correct approach ultimately depends on the student. Those who are overtly bold (perhaps young guys) may indeed benefit from more vigilance emphasis, while those who are hyper alert may need more training on the important role of more conspicuous lane positioning.

Ignoring for a second your can-of-worms statement about 'deferential behavior' (which must refer to passing situations alone, which really are peripheral to this discussion that concerns mainly turning/crossing situations) I agree about the need for balance. That's why I was blown away to find that defensive ideology had been back-burnered in Effective Cycling.

Robert

[genec]

It's hardly baseless speculation, HH. I presume to know what's going on in your head and Forester's head based only on your own words and his own words. I can't read your minds, but I can read your words. And in your words I find a dangerously rosey opinion of VC's power to keep riders safe, simply through predictable riding and conspicuous positioning, and a dangerously rosey opinion of traffic in general. Sort of a Platonic/Aristotelean music of the spheres thing.


Robert

Please allow me to clarify something as an interested outside observer... first I tend to agree with Robert on all the "overlooked" scenarios... I myself have seen that "Scream" look a few too many times to assume that my positioning and bright clothing have made me nearly as visible as the large boxy objects that motorists are looking for, and also even overlook. (as evidenced in so many collisions)

Second, the "dangerously rosey opinion" that Serge has of VC I believe comes from the vast difference between trained cyclists and totally untrained cyclists.

Serge (Helmet Head) tends to focus on the "low hanging fruit" of wrong way riders, curb huggers, redlight runners, no light at night riders, sidewalk riders and the like, and learning the basic tenants of vc would be a vast improvement to these renegade scofflaws.

Now obviously this group of "scofflaws" does not cover all of us... and many many long time riders have gained the basic tenants of vc through the simple hard knocks of riding in the street. So while vc does have it's place... it certainly is not the only answer to a very complicated equation that has as a few of it's variables such things as the cyclist, the motorists, the street, the actual environmental conditions and of course the attitudes of all involved.

Now of course the real issue is how to convey proper road technique to the ever changing number of cyclists that are using bicycles for the first time as a means of transportation. I believe that the methodologies of the LAB for instructor to small group are quite inadequate for the sheer number of cyclists out there and a more realistic approach would be to work for bicycle training at local public schools... coupled with a more vigorous driver training program that emphasizes the laws and ethics of driving a heavy high powered vehicle.

[sbhikes]

Serge doesn't appear to focus much of his attention on the low hanging fruit at all. He aims the vast majority of his arrows at anybody who uses bike lanes. He's an apologist and a shill for the oil and auto industries as he'd prefer the world continue to be designed with the mindset that the auto is the only user of the roadway.

I think the worst "overlooker" offender is those guys who are in left turn lanes on your same street but opposing you. They figure that if they gun it the instant the light turns green they can swoop through their left turns before the rest of the traffic gets a chance to take a foot of the brake and put it on the gas.

Another worst "overlooker" offender is the guy who's stuck in a long line of congestion, knows the area well so he knows there's no getting out of it, and knows the area well enough that he knows if he pulls a U-turn he can go back a mile to a better spot to get on the freeway. So, he pulls an illegal U-turn not bothering to really check if there is anything smaller than a Hummer coming his way.

I've had a lot of close calls on motorcycles form these turkeys, and from those quick puller-outers pulling from their parking spaces on the street.

Oh, another class "overlooker" offender is the guy who is crossing a one-way street and doesn't bother to look the other way. Why does this matter? Well, pedestrians for starters. But in my town we have a series of parallel streets alternating in their one-way direction with a two-way street in the middle of the bunch like this: (v ^ || v ^). So the driver loses count of which street he's crossing and treats the two-way street as a one way, only looks in one direction and boom, there I am riding my bike or motorcycle lawfully but there's no way he'll see me because he's not looking my way and doesn't plan on doing so. Happens all the time, especially at early morning hours when there is little traffic.

Motorists overlook other road users all the time. That HH can't see it doesn't make his point of view true for the rest of us.

[genec]

Serge doesn't appear to focus much of his attention on the low hanging fruit at all. He aims the vast majority of his arrows at anybody who uses bike lanes. He's an apologist and a shill for the oil and auto industries as he'd prefer the world continue to be designed with the mindset that the auto is the only user of the roadway.



Ah ha, but the problem there is that Serge figures that anyone who has not read all the right books and taken all the right classes IS low hanging fruit. There was no way I could ever convince him that my 30+ years of cycling had taught me quite well... as I did not use the proper terminology when I first started posting here.

Now in fact I have taken the classes (which in reality did not teach me much, if anything) and read a couple of the books, and can use the same terminology as Serge... so I suppose I am a fully "certified, qualified, official cyclist." But the reality is I still prefer bike lanes on high speed multilaned roads and I question HH's lack of encounters with motorists. (he has stated on several occasions that he just ignores them).

So the bottom line is, until you have established your credentials with HH... he considers just about everyone "low hanging fruit." Even Robert Hurst.... apparently.

[TRaffic Jammer]

I think adult cyclists should be licensed and should have to take a course like this to get a license.

ridiculous.....just what we need is more reasons to be militant against bureaucracy, legislating and licensing the ONLY truly free mode of transport.

[sbhikes]

So the bottom line is, until you have established your credentials with HH... he considers just about everyone "low hanging fruit."
Ok. That makes more sense.

I think his message would be a lot better received and do a lot more good in the world if he brought his knowledge to the true low hanging fruit and just got them to understand, in a non-zealous, non-militant, non-anti-bike lane way:
a) it's safer to ride in accordance with the rules of the road
b) you can ride comfortably in traffic
c) and here's how

And leave all his other BS out of it. But that's a pipe dream, ain't it?

[genec]

Ok. That makes more sense.

I think his message would be a lot better received and do a lot more good in the world if he brought his knowledge to the true low hanging fruit and just got them to understand, in a non-zealous, non-militant, non-anti-bike lane way:
a) it's safer to ride in accordance with the rules of the road
b) you can ride comfortably in traffic
c) and here's how

And leave all his other BS out of it. But that's a pipe dream, ain't it?

Probably... I have yet to get a good comprehensive answer out of him about how he plans on reaching all those cyclists that don't realize they might need some training. Most of the student type utility cyclists ride in a manner that exactly fits the "negative cyclist image," i.e. riding on sidewalks, riding against the flow, running stoplights and signs. Yet these folks are arriving at their destinations and from their standpoint, they did just fine. These folks probably do not frequent LBSs so there isn't any way to really contact them.

The other utility riders that ride in this poor manner are the migrant workers and the DUI folks... again a rather difficult group to herd into a meeting for instruction.

The regular commuters will "get it" rather quickly, as the street teaches harsh lessons.

The weekend peloton riders could be taught properly or at least informed, by their ride leaders and clubs, so this group is somewhat reachable.

And of course last of all are the recreation riders that get the bike out 3 times a year... the park riders... They are difficult to reach, don't care, and indeed view bikes as toys and therefore are not temped to take any training as "they already know how to ride a bike."

With all this in mind, I really want to know how anyone can propose to train all the cyclists out on the road to adhere to a vc style?

I think HH and Forester both are a bit "out on a limb" for believeing that cyclists will want their training.

[JRA]

It seems to me if you're so impressed with the magical ability of VC/EC to keep you out of these situations in the first place, you're setting yourself up for a big surprise.
I believe there may be some merit (don't take this as a concession, however) to the argument that EC and so-called "VC rhetoric" does not put enough direct emphasis on the need for cyclists to put a higher priority on being vigilant..."Some merit"? The basis of EC and VC is instilling confidence and freedom from fear. Stressing the need for vigilance increase fear, which is why EC/VC don't do it.

To the extent that a fear is unfounded, the EC/VC approach is good. To the extent that a fear is based in reality, the VC/EC approach is potentially dangerous.

In many sports, an athlete is often most prone to injury when they are overly concerned with injury. Excessive caution actually increases the risk of injury. To a certain extent, the same is true of cycling. Excessive, unwarranted, fear causes some cyclists to do things that increase the risks. This is why the VC/EC approach appears to work.

But the VC/EC approach is based on a half truth. Some fears are actually based in reality. Rather than addressing the reality, the EC/VC approach all too often is to dimiss even well-founded fears and ridicule those who have them.



Every experienced VC-indoctrinated cyclists may ride with a vigilant mindset--that is what actual experience does to a person after all--but that does not mean vigilance is taught in the EC program.
This seems to me to be a song of a different tune. It never seemed missing to me, but now that you bring it up, I will have to review the book and training materials (although I just went through a seminar, I have not been officially certified yet, and of course have not prepared for nor taught a class yet)...
Review the book and training materials all you want but you have already confirmed that there is little or no emphasis on vigilance in the EC program. You just went through the seminar. You hawk the book as if you're getting a commission and you incessantly quote it. And you're going to have to review it? Gimme a break! If vigilance were emphasised, you, of all people, wouldn't have to do a power search to determine that.

[sbhikes]

I have a problem with vigilance. I certainly try to ride carefully, and am especially careful about putting any trust in what people do or look like they are doing around intersections, but I would much prefer a concrete solution that relieves me of having to maintain constant perfect vigilance. Nobody can do that. I certainly can't. I think that most people want more assurance that they won't get creamed out there. That is why a lot of people are simply holding out for a day when there are adequate separated bike paths.

That's just a fact. I don't care to hear about all your negative commentary about bike paths. It's simply what I always hear when I tell people I ride to work, that I ride in traffic, that it doesn't bother me, that I ride vehicularly. The more I say it doesn't bother me, that I'm careful, that I ride in a vehicular manner etc the more they insist they want bike paths because they do not trust drivers, and the more they insist that I must be crazy, have a death wish, will come to my senses someday when a cellphone clutching SUV lady with a latte and two screaming kids in the back mows me down.

I just don't know what to say to that. And since bike paths can be very nice (we've got some great ones out here), I certainly can't argue against them.

[genec]

I have a problem with vigilance. I certainly try to ride carefully, and am especially careful about putting any trust in what people do or look like they are doing around intersections, but I would much prefer a concrete solution that relieves me of having to maintain constant perfect vigilance. Nobody can do that. I certainly can't. I think that most people want more assurance that they won't get creamed out there. That is why a lot of people are simply holding out for a day when there are adequate separated bike paths.

That's just a fact. I don't care to hear about all your negative commentary about bike paths. It's simply what I always hear when I tell people I ride to work, that I ride in traffic, that it doesn't bother me, that I ride vehicularly. The more I say it doesn't bother me, that I'm careful, that I ride in a vehicular manner etc the more they insist they want bike paths because they do not trust drivers, and the more they insist that I must be crazy, have a death wish, will come to my senses someday when a cellphone clutching SUV lady with a latte and two screaming kids in the back mows me down.

I just don't know what to say to that. And since bike paths can be very nice (we've got some great ones out here), I certainly can't argue against them.


It's rather like dealing with those that would cause harm to our country...

You as a cyclist have to be 100% right, to prevent your personal harm, if they "get through" (driver messes up) once.

This is why I feel that there should be more responsibility on the driver's part to watch for cyclists... More ROW for cyclists or something similar.

Of course the counter arguement is that then there would be more restrictions on cyclists...

[TRaffic Jammer]

^^^word^^^
When I sit in the driver's seat I take a very hardcore defensive tact BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE I CAN CAUSE in my car. I don't assume ownership of a lane, don't pressure riders if I'm driving in the curb lane. Here's a good one, if I can't complete the turn..... I don't start it. When riders' have the legal right to be there as well as the cars', the obvious choice for adjusting behaviors is the element of the equation that has the most potential for chaos and death: The car.

[JRA]

I have a problem with vigilance.The need for vigilance is a fact of life.

Two examples of worlds in which there is no need for vigilance are:


a world some VC-ists say already exists in which riding vehicularly eliminates all danger
a world some facilities advocates think they can create by eliminating interaction between bicycles and cars


Neither world is anything more than a fantasy. A world in which there is need for vigilance does not and will never exist.

[vrkelley]

OK OK...it got out of hand. When I said in another thread, "it takes awhile to train motorists", I did not mean that drivers are chimps...rather, it takes awhile for drivers to get used to navigating around bikes. Many bikers are unpredictable and that's scarey for drivers.

What I meant was...when the same commuters see you in traffic every day, they get used to navigating around you and it's easier for everyone.

[vrkelley]

OK OK...it got out of hand. When I said in another thread, "it takes awhile to train motorists", I did not mean that drivers are chimps...rather, it takes awhile for drivers to get used to navigating around bikes. Many bikers are unpredictable and that's scarey for drivers.

What I meant was...when the same commuters see you in traffic every day, they get used to navigating around you and it's easier for everyone.

[sbhikes]

The need for vigilance is a fact of life.

Two examples of worlds in which there is no need for vigilance are:


a world some VC-ists say already exists in which riding vehicularly eliminates all danger
a world some facilities advocates think they can create by eliminating interaction between bicycles and cars


Neither world is anything more than a fantasy. A world in which there is need for vigilance does not and will never exist.
You have to be a lot less vigilant when there's a decent bike path. How are you going to get run over by a car if the only traffic allowed is bike traffic? Every day my route has a portion on the bike path. I breathe a sigh of relief when I get to it because now all I have to worry about is running over ducks.

I can't see why that is so bad. And it is no fantasy. It's part of my daily ride.

[CommuterRun]

You have to be a lot less vigilant when there's a decent bike path. How are you going to get run over by a car if the only traffic allowed is bike traffic? Every day my route has a portion on the bike path. I breathe a sigh of relief when I get to it because now all I have to worry about is running over ducks.

I can't see why that is so bad. And it is no fantasy. It's part of my daily ride.

You can get away with being less vigilant on a bike path compared to the road, because there is less traffic of any type. If there were as many bikes on the bike path as cars on the road, equal vigilance would be required. Perhaps more, because not only would the cyclist have to be concerned with being overtaken, but would also have to be concerned with safely passing.

The fantasy is the idea that bike paths can be built everywhere to serve all cyclists to all destinations. If you have one, or more, that serve your purposes, that's great.:)

They are not necessary nor desireable here. Better to share the existing roads than bulldoze another strip of asphalt through the woods.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

OK OK...it got out of hand. When I said in another thread, "it takes awhile to train motorists", I did not mean that drivers are chimps...rather, it takes awhile for drivers to get used to navigating around bikes. Many bikers are unpredictable and that's scarey for drivers.

What I meant was...when the same commuters see you in traffic every day, they get used to navigating around you and it's easier for everyone.
I saw this scenario quite clearly in 5 years of cycle commuting in Heidelberg, Germany. That city has a large contingent of Americans, either in the military or working for the military. Their cars had different license plates than the locals. It was evident that the American learned quick enough to drive like locals and give respect to the mulitude of cyclists and not drive like typical Americans do when in the presence of cyclists. No right hooks, no horn blowing, no acting like impatient jerks. Americam drivers CAN drive sensibly among cyclists in an environment where there are many cyclists and the local culture does not tolerate or condone ignorant driving. American drivers can quickly learn to be vigilant in looking out for bicyclists in such an environment because they cannot afford not to.

[genec]

I saw this scenario quite clearly in 5 years of cycle commuting in Heidelberg, Germany. That city has a large contingent of Americans, either in the military or working for the military. Their cars had different license plates than the locals. It was evident that the American learned quick enough to drive like locals and give respect to the mulitude of cyclists and not drive like typical Americans do when in the presence of cyclists. No right hooks, no horn blowing, no acting like impatient jerks. Americam drivers CAN drive sensibly among cyclists in an environment where there are many cyclists and the local culture does not tolerate or condone ignorant driving. American drivers can quickly learn to be vigilant in looking out for bicyclists in such an environment because they cannot afford not to.

Very interersting statement... so then do you support training American drivers to give respect to cyclists?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Very interersting statement... so then do you support training American drivers to give respect to cyclists?
American drivers aren't formally trained in Germany to drive sensibly around cyclists. Self preservation (accidents with Germans are big time trouble) and common sense take hold quick in an environment that doesn't wink-wink at Jack Donkey Driving by ignorant clods.

[genec]

American drivers aren't formally trained in Germany to drive sensibly around cyclists. Self preservation (accidents with Germans are big time trouble) and common sense take hold quick in an environment that doesn't wink-wink at Jack Donkey Driving by ignorant clods.

Obviously something is different... are the laws in Germany such that they protect cyclists? (I believe cyclists have ROW in Germany... per another thread).

But the bottom line is that the behaviour of motorists CAN be changed.

[sbhikes]

You can get away with being less vigilant on a bike path compared to the road, because there is less traffic of any type. If there were as many bikes on the bike path as cars on the road, equal vigilance would be required. Perhaps more, because not only would the cyclist have to be concerned with being overtaken, but would also have to be concerned with safely passing.

The fantasy is the idea that bike paths can be built everywhere to serve all cyclists to all destinations. If you have one, or more, that serve your purposes, that's great.:)

They are not necessary nor desireable here. Better to share the existing roads than bulldoze another strip of asphalt through the woods.

You don't need bike paths to go to every single place. A few is enough to get a majority of work done.

If I were to bump into another cyclist it would be more of an opportunity to meet a sexy guy than it would be to go to the hospital

It does not create more asphalt to create a bike path. If you create bike paths instead of roads and get more people riding you need less asphalt in the end. It is a net savings.

[SamHouston]

Looks like this thread is a fun place, I've missed all but this page and 6 pages is a bunch to go back over. Since everyone else is commenting I'll chime in on the topic.

No, I absolutely don't "train" other road users, I do interact/communicate with them on a regular basis and find them human, equal to me and probably as apt to scorn any stranger that pretends they may spontaneously "train" others with impromptu nods & hand gestures.

HH they may have mistakenly thought you were communicating lane postion or your own intentions.

Perhaps you should wear a hat that makes it clear you are the alpha imparting wisdom, then you'd get an honest response & not one lost in translation.

Motorist thought Choo-Choo "That fellow is signaling to me, he intends to stop"

HH thought Choo-Choo "That motorist now has a firm grasp of several basic tenets of VC & proper lane positioning, all thanks to a simple hand gesture I've invented."

Sorry to mock you, but words convey attitude "YOU" know, it's something they "trained" you in school.

[TRaffic Jammer]

An A-hat? :lol:

Sam.... did you go to the G Sprints the other night?

[SamHouston]

No I slept instead, Monday was the only 9+ hours of cycling day that I've had in awhile and it was all gridlock thanks to that strike. Did you go?

[TRaffic Jammer]

nope....

[Helmet Head]

HH, I wasn't reacting to Mr. Bekologist, but to your astounding statement that you go years between incidents of being overlooked by a motorist. I think the only way this could be possible is if you don't ride very much. You concede that motorcyclists must get overlooked about as often as cyclists who ride vehicularly--do you really think regular motorcyclists go years between these incidents?
I don't know what to tell you, but I can't remember the last time I was overlooked (and it mattered enough for me to notice). Again, I don't ride nearly as much as you do, but I do click off 3,000-5,000 miles per year. But maybe we're using different definitions of "overlooked". First, relatively few drivers have to see me in order to avoid hitting me, because their path has no chance of conflicting with mine. For most of the drivers on the road at any give time, a cyclist (or any given vehicle for that matter) may as well be invisible. Whether most of them see him or not does not matter. The only exceptions are:


Someone faster behind whose path will merge with the cyclist's path if neither makes an adjustment.
Someone whose path will cross the cyclist's path, or will come too close to doing so, if neither makes some kind of adjustment.

At any given moment, there are few people that actually need to see me. But those are the ones I need to identify and be concerned about. Perhaps many others are overlooking me, but I don't count them, since I don't need them to see me. The ones I'm concerned with are the ones to whom I make sure I'm visible.

I use a mirror, and I'm habitually doing frequent fraction-of-a-second rear checks to make sure anyone behind me who needs to see me does. I've never had to move out of the way because someone was approaching without a hint of seeing me. Never. By the way, Forester considers this unnecessary, and the more extreme think it's bordering on paranoia. I don't care. I don't do it out of fear. I could go on and on about the benefits of mirror use and being connected and communicating with those behind me, particularly in high speed differential areas. I was taught in driver ed to check my mirror frequently, and I think it's even more valuable in a slow moving vehicle than in one moving with the flow. But I digress...

As to the second group... I wear bright clothing and position myself in intersections as conspicously as possible. I'm very careful to not assume that those who need to see me do without confirmation. I'm constantly looking for verification, and doing stuff to get verification. Granted, that verification sometimes comes in the form of a honk (very rarely), but I get it. Again, I can't remember ever not getting it.

Now, if I'm riding off to the side of a right lane, and need to start preparing to merge left, if I signal and someone doesn't let me in, is that an "overlook"? Well, if you count those, that does happen. But I don't count those. They do that to car drivers too, and, in general, I get better yielding cooperation when on my bike than in my car anyway.


Sure. The most common, as Roody notes, is the driver at a stop sign attempting to cross the street I'm on. They are in glance-and-dash mode. If you ride a ton you may notice as I have that drivers across the street at stop signs on the left are less likely to notice a rider approaching than drivers at stop signs on the right.
I'm drawing a complete blank. In 30 years and tens of thousands of miles of cycling, I can't remember anyone at a stop sign proceeding across the intersection in front of me, from the right or left, close enough to impact me somehow (forcing me to brake, or suddenly turn). But maybe it has happened and I just didn't think anything of it.


But the most important factor has to be the driver him/herself, they don't want to stop, they simply want to glance quickly to see if there is a workable gap between vehicles and shoot across, and they are not thinking about the possibility of bikes in the road.
I can see this happening, but particularly to a cyclist who is riding to the right of vehicular through traffic as they approach an intersection, and there is a gap behind a group of motorists. As soon as that last one goes through, the motorist on the left cuts across. He doesn't see the cyclist not because he's a cyclist, but because he's riding to the right of where that motorist is looking. I don't do that. I just don't.


next time you're driving a car take stock of all the physical conditions that could affect your vision of a relatively small cyclist on the road.
I do it all the time. I also note that a cyclist is not much if any less visible than the typical motorcyclist. Whatever extra bulk the motorcyclist may have, the cyclist can usually at least make up with bright clothing. Plus, since the average speed of motorcyclists is so much higher, at any given moment they are typically further away from the potential conflict n seconds into the future. Since they're further away from the point of conflict, they're likely to be less visible. Because of his relatively slow speed, a cyclist has to be relatively close (and therefore easier to see than if he were further away) to a point of conflict when he need to be seen to avoid that conflict.


In addition to these I have recently experienced the crank-left. This is the driver on the right side, either parallel parked or stuck in a line of stopped traffic, who takes a look in the rear-view, cranes the neck around a bit then stomps the gas and cranks-left into the adjacent lane. Oops, dude on a bike. Driver makes face like The Scream. Like the stop-sign glancers, these are usually pretty easy for a watchful cyclist to avoid.
Great example. In any situation where there is a potential crank-lefter, there is a gap in vehicular traffic in that lane (without the gap, he can't move left into the target lane). Now, given the gap, which I'm always aware of (thanks to the mirror again), I'm in the center of the lane. No more gap. Most of the time "oops, dude on a bike" happens is because the "dude on a bike" is off to the right of the area where the left cranker checks. Again, a cyclist should be no more vulnerable (and probably considerably less vulnerable) to this than is a motorcyclist.


Then there are the right-turners, and the glance-and-run pedestrians. It's been a few weeks since I had to deal with a blind left turner, but these are the worst. There is more potential for harm from a left turner due to the speed they tend to carry and the angle of attack. For this reason I believe remaining hyper-aware of potential left-turning vehicles and their potential vectors is probably the most critical task facing the cyclist in traffic. When the crazed left-turner comes down on you, it can feel like they're gunning for you intentionally, because they might as well be.
Of course. That's why we ride conspicuously. But that doesn't mean we assume we are seen and blindly continue! If it's relevant for someone to see me in order to not hit me, I'm looking for that verification, and I don't ease up on the vigilance until I get it (and even then I'm always ready, just in case). But the best tool I know, by far, to achieve being seen, is conspicuous road positioning. That's the first line of defense, if you will. If I relied mostly on my own vigilance, i would just slow down and keep to the bike lane (or the space it would be placed if one was there). Heck, if I did so I would be inviting them to "overlook" (or ignore) me, and I would not be surprised if they did. But I just don't do that.

Again, I do move aside if there is room and someone needs to pass, but in those cases this situation is moot, since the traffic passing me is keeping the left-turner from charging out. But as soon as they've passed me and there is any kind of significant gap (i.e., big enough for someone to jam across in a car), I immediately move back to the center. And I mean immediately. I don't dilly dally in the toy lane when there is no same-direction traffic present. When I'm off to the side allowing faster traffic to pass, I'm monitoring for that gap in my mirror, and have been prepared to move into it long before it gets to me. That's very different from noticing a gap because the last car that passed you has no one following it. By that time, the gap is already there, and you still have to look back to make sure there it's safe to merge left. With the mirror, I already know to look back as soon as that (say) green car is beside me. By the time it passes me, I've already verified the gap with a look back, and am moving left. I'm in the center of the lane before a mirror-less cyclist even has a chance to realize there is a gap and space to move left. I think that aspect of my riding where I'm out in the lane any time it's possible makes me much less likely to be overlooked than even most experienced cyclists.


(Actually left-turners aren't the worst brand of overlookers. The worst are the drivers who overlook a cyclist in their lane and hit them from behind. This is extremely rare compared to the turning/crossing incidents above, but it does happen. My own girlfriend is still recovering from a broken back caused by just this sort of 'didn't-see-ya' collision (yes, HH, she was riding well out away from the curb), and she is (and I am) simply lucky she wasn't killed.)
Agreed. Here's another example, very tragic.

http://www.bikefriday.com/main.cfm?fuseaction=news.article&ID=499&Category=News

But again, in order to reduce my reliance on faulty (I'm human too) vigilance, my primary line of defensive is conspicuous lane positioning, even in wide lanes. My secondary defense is habitual and frequent split second monitoring of the rear view mirror, and ever-present preparation to ditch in the very unlikely but never-the-less possible event that an approaching motorist will overlook me (in wide lanes I almost always move aside to the secondary "bike lane" position where most cyclists ride most of the time before the approaching motorist reaches me anyway).


And in your words I find a dangerously rosey opinion of VC's power to keep riders safe, simply through predictable riding and conspicuous positioning, and a dangerously rosey opinion of traffic in general.
First, words are far from an ideal tool to convey the type of concepts we are discussing. Miscommunication on this stuff is practically guaranteed. It's not a matter of whether we are interpreting each others words differently from what is meant, but how much that is happening and exactly where.

Let me put it this way: I'm with you on the importance of vigilance. But I'm human. I don't want to rely on my vigilance more than I have to. One purpose of VC is to minimize (not eliminate!) one's obvious and necessary dependence on one's own, and that of others, humanly imperfect vigilance. VC does this by instilling habits that place the cyclist in traffic such that the probability that he will be overlooked and/or ignored (which is often misinterpreted as "overlooked") is minimized (not eliminated!). We rely on vigilance to take care of the rest.