More fodder for the bike lane/lane position debate

[galen_52657]

Guy was hit from behind and killed riding in the shoulder, 2' right of the fog line.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228457

[Brian Ratliff]

No, but a good thread on the proper treatment of a death in the cycling community. Unlike how we tend to stone the dead guy here on this forum. Let the man rest in peace.

Nothing to see here. Sh!t happens sometimes. Accept it and move on. Don't treat a real person's death as "fodder" for a "debate." If you want a case study, remove the personal details of the person killed and then find the bare details of the accident so a real debate can occur. You guys insist on running the deceased up the flag pole to start a "debate." When you talk about "fodder," realize that "fodder" is the sh!tty food which you give to livestock to keep them alive. A deceased person is hardly "fodder" in any sense of the term.

Forum mods, if there are any decent ones left, please lock this thread before it gets going. There is already a thread about the death in the road cycling forum, and here, the intent is clearly to take a sensitive current event to turn it into "fodder" for a "debate." Please put a stop to this and make it clear that "case study" threads should not be emotionally charged by including the personal details of a death in the cycling community. The case studies should be allowed as they are instructive, but please lock any which include these sensitive personal details.

[buzzman]

No, but a good thread on the proper treatment of a death in the cycling community. Unlike how we tend to stone the dead guy here on this forum. Let the man rest in peace.

Nothing to see here. **** happens sometimes. Accept it and move on. Don't treat a real person's death as "fodder" for a "debate." If you want a case study, remove the personal details of the person killed and then find the bare details of the accident so a real debate can occur. You guys insist on running the deceased up the flag pole to start a "debate." When you talk about "fodder," realize that "fodder" is the sh!tty food which you give to livestock to keep them alive. A deceased person is hardly "fodder" in any sense of the term.

Forum mods, if there are any decent ones left, please lock this thread before it gets going. There is already a thread about the death in the road cycling forum, and here, the intent is clearly to take a sensitive current event to turn it into "fodder" for a "debate." Please put a stop to this and make it clear that "case study" threads should not be emotionally charged with including the personal details of a death in the cycling community. The case studies should be allowed as they are instructive, but please lock any which include these sensitive personal details.

Well said.

[Helmet Head]

Guy was hit from behind and killed riding in the shoulder, 2' right of the fog line.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228457

This appears to be "textbook" inattentional blindness (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html) leading to inadvertent drift into what cognitively seemed to be an empty shoulder to the driver.


The Livingston County sheriff's office said that Dechau was riding westbound on the shoulder of route 20 approximately two feet to the right of the white line. A sheriff's spokesman said a westbound vehicle driven by Sharon Cameron, 61, crossed the white line and struck Dechau from behind at approximately 45-50 mph, and Dechau died at the scene.

Cameron could not provide an explanation to police as to why her vehicle drifted from the travel lane to the shoulder. She freely submitted to a blood test as part of the accident investigation, and police do not believe she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Results of investigation will determine if charges will be filed against Cameron.

[galen_52657]

Nobody is stoning the dead guy. Nobody is disrespecting the dead. You obviously read what you want into things and carry your own bias.

Everybody hates to hear about any cyclist getting injured or killed. And, things do just 'happen' all the time and there is nothing to be done about it.

Those facts in and of themselves do not preclude a thoughtful investigation of the facts surrounding the accident to see if anything can be learned.

[Helmet Head]

The case studies should be allowed as they are instructive, but please lock any which include these sensitive personal details.
What "sensitive personal details" were mentioned in the OP that warrants this comment in this thead?

Can we treat this thread as a case study, please? I am.

[Helmet Head]

Nobody is stoning the dead guy. Nobody is disrespecting the dead. You obviously read what you want into things and carry your own bias.

Everybody hates to hear about any cyclist getting injured or killed. And, things do just 'happen' all the time and there is nothing to be done about it.

Those facts in and of themselves do not preclude a thoughtful investigation of the facts surrounding the accident to see if anything can be learned.
Well said.

[Helmet Head]

Any suggestions (besides what I "preach", or comments on why what I preach is not a good suggestion) on what cyclists can actively do while riding to not fall victim to inattentional blindness and inadvertent drift?

What I "preach" is:

That's why I take the lane even between intersections on roads like this (good shoulder or bike lane) except when I see faster approaching in my mirror, in which case I look over my right shoulder, then move into the roadway shoulder (or bike lane) about 5 seconds before they reach me (at a 30 mph closing speed that's over 200 feet), and stay there until they've passed me, then I look over my left shoulder and move back into the travel lane (until the next group of 1 or more vehicles is about 5 seconds behind me). It might seem like a lot of work, but, like anything else, once you get used to it it becomes effortless. And, I find it helps keep MY attention on traffic instead of drifting off...

But the main reason I take the lane between intersections on roads like this is to increase the probability motorists approaching from behind NOTICE my presence sometime during the minute or so before they reach me, and therefore, are cognitively aware of my presence up ahead, are watching me and paying attention as I look back and move into the shoulder, and are therefore much less likely to inadvertently drift into the "empty" shoulder as they are passing me.

[genec]

Wow, two feet to the right of the fog line... sure seems like some motorists really have a hard time controlling their vehicles.

I wonder if the motorist was asleep at the wheel and whether anything would have been noticed ahead by the motorist of this incident.

[Helmet Head]

Wow, two feet to the right of the fog line... sure seems like some motorists really have a hard time controlling their vehicles.
Wow?

I suggest we stop being surprised about incidents of drivers drifting to the right across the road edge stripe. It happens all the time. Most of the time, of course, it's completely inconsequential (because shoulders are normally empty)... the driver briefly drifts into that "buffer space" while they're paying attention to something else, then something triggers and they correct themselves back into the lane. Happens all the time.

There are solid stripes on the roads that drivers regularly illegally/wrongly cross over without incident or mishap. They are accustomed to doing it. I see cops doing it. They have no idea they're doing it. Why? Because their purpose is to get from A to B without crashing or hitting anyone, and crossing a harmless painted stripe does not contradict that purpose. So they don't even notice they're doing it. So, for better or worse, the experience all drivers have is: crossing a solid white stripe is no big deal. It's not a big NO NO like running a red light. Conceptually in terms of "wrongness", it's more like rolling a stop sign when turning right: technically maybe illegal, but "give me a break".

Next time you're with someone who is driving, about a block after they go through a stop sign ask them whether they came to a complete stop, or rolled. I'll bet they're is only a 50/50 chance they'll be aware of what they did. Same with crossing a solid stripe (be it a shoulder stripe, a gore stripe, or, yes, a bike lane stripe).

So... Wow? No, I for one am not surprised at all. This is typical behavior for drivers, and I see no way to change that (just as I see no way to stop them from rolling across some stop signs). The only thing I see is a need to get them to realize that the shoulder or bike lane I'm in is NOT empty before they overtake me. And the only way I know to do that is to get their attention before they reach me, by being where they are paying attention, in their intended path up ahead, and, then, moving aside into the shoulder only after I have their attention.

[SSP]

Several thoughts come to mind:

1) daytime flashers
With the advent of daylight visible flashers, I think some of the perception problems can be alleviated.

2) road designs
Ideally, there would be some roadway "dots" or narrow rumble strip, to alert drivers when they're drifting into a bike lane.

3) Mirrors
I've met very few hard core cyclists that ride with a mirror. If the guy who was struck in the OP had been wearing one, he might have been able to take evasive action. Without one, it's likely he never knew what hit him.

[Brian Ratliff]

Nobody is stoning the dead guy. Nobody is disrespecting the dead. You obviously read what you want into things and carry your own bias.

Everybody hates to hear about any cyclist getting injured or killed. And, things do just 'happen' all the time and there is nothing to be done about it.

Those facts in and of themselves do not preclude a thoughtful investigation of the facts surrounding the accident to see if anything can be learned.

You obviously missed what I was saying. Post a case study if you want. Just strip the personal details of who, when, and location. There is no point in having these details be part of your case study, except, perhaps, to inflame emotions of the cycling community and generate controversy. I won't answer to your case study, and nobody else should either, until you post the specific details sans any personal information which could lead to the slain cyclist being identified.

I have no problem with case studies - they can be very helpful as a teaching tool. I have a very real problem with using an intensely emotional (for some in the cycling community, obviously not yourself) event as "fodder" for a "debate."

Again, if you want this to be discussed by anyone else than HH; if you want this to teach anything to anybody; then repost your case study with details of the accident as it pertains to your teaching or discussion and sans any personal details of who was involved, when it happened, and where it happened. Instead of being lazy and saying "such and such road in greensville, OH," say: "on a 4 lane arterial road with shoulders but no bike lane around a gentle right hand bend...". This is how you describe a case study in neutral terms, so it can be studied free from emotional response.

Otherwise, I can only assume that your objective is to only inflame emotions and provoke controversy (which people of your ilk tend to confuse with "debate"), and is not to teach or analyze or study.

The moderators of this forum should kill any thread which seeks to capitalize on the deaths of real, identifiable, cyclists to "teach" or "study" or "debate" a subject. This forums has already gotten the reputation of being a not so very friendly place where all we do is shout, insult, and degrade each other. We can change that by making up some rules which case studies are posted. These rules should dictate that any post which seeks to capitalize on the death or serious injury of a real, identifiable, cyclist as a teaching or debating tool be immediately locked. Case studies should be allowed, and they can even be about current events, but they cannot identify the cyclist involved by either direct information, location, or time. The OP needs to be responsible for providing the details of the case study and not taking shortcuts such as simply naming an article in the paper or providing the cross street. This will ensure the discussion of the case study stays on track and the victim of the accident cannot be identified.

HH, galen, DC, and others who seem to prefer the emotionally charged way of teaching case studies; I'd suggest you work with me on this one. Every thread you fellows start with case studies are poorly thought out, poorly researched, and nearly always start with a clip from a news article. Every thread of this ilk veers off within the first page by people who are offended by your "discussion method." The common result is that there are 5 or 6 pages of insults, no discussion except by a few hard headed individuals such as HH or galen, and as a result, not discussion of the ideas the OP was trying to present. It doesn't help when the OP uses inflamatory language such as "another case of a bike lane killing another cyclist" (paraphrased, of course). As a result of there not being any discussion, there is no exchange of ideas, and no teaching. A newbe who happens upon one of these threads simply doesn't learn anything except that there is some sort of "controversy," and/or gets disgusted by the whole thing.

So, galen: Please, if your aim is to teach or discuss, repost this as a cleaned up case study which is self contained so we can have a proper discussion of traffic cycling technique and philosophy. I don't mind these (I don't think anyone minds these), and I've participated in several in the past.

[Brian Ratliff]

I should add that there can be no such thing as "accident analysis" on the internet. There is, simply, no possible way enough information can be obtained to really analyze a real accident through the third and fourth hand information we get through the media. To do real accident analysis, you have to be on physically on scene of the actual accident (so you can see the subtlies of terrain, damage, and environment), and you have to be specifically trained to know what you are seeing as you see it.

All there can be, on the internet, are case studies, which are intended as teaching tools and, by definition, are self contained, provide limited information and are limited in scope.

[Brian Ratliff]

And one last thing: posts which are posted here which do include personal information and do identify the cyclist who was killed, should be limited to expressions other than ones which attempt to analyze, rationalize, or say that "who and who would probably still be alive if they did this and this..." (again, to paraphrase).

Keep the internet analyses to threads which are case studies and don't refer to individual, slain, cyclists.

[serpico7]

So... Wow? No, I for one am not surprised at all. This is typical behavior for drivers, and I see no way to change that (just as I see no way to stop them from rolling across some stop signs). The only thing I see is a need to get them to realize that the shoulder or bike lane I'm in is NOT empty before they overtake me. And the only way I know to do that is to get their attention before they reach me, by being where they are paying attention, in their intended path up ahead, and, then, moving aside into the shoulder only after I have their attention.
Good advice HH. With wind noise and hybrid vehicles, effective use of this technique would seem to require a mirror. I've been thinking about getting a mirror, and I think this death-from-behind incident seals the deal for me. Hell, I might need 2 mirrors because I always ride on the left side on one-way roads. What sort of mirror do you use HH?

[mechBgon]

I'm sure the fact that the old lady was driving head-on into the setting sun couldn't have had anything to do with her difficulty in maintaining her lane position. And even if it had, then if the cyclist had been using DLP, it would've magically made the sun stop glaring like that. Yep.

That's all the further I'm going to bother with this one. CYA.

[Helmet Head]

So... Wow? No, I for one am not surprised at all. This is typical behavior for drivers, and I see no way to change that (just as I see no way to stop them from rolling across some stop signs). The only thing I see is a need to get them to realize that the shoulder or bike lane I'm in is NOT empty before they overtake me. And the only way I know to do that is to get their attention before they reach me, by being where they are paying attention, in their intended path up ahead, and, then, moving aside into the shoulder only after I have their attention.

Good advice HH. With wind noise and hybrid vehicles, effective use of this technique would seem to require a mirror. I've been thinking about getting a mirror, and I think this death-from-behind incident seals the deal for me. What sort of mirror do you use HH?
Yes, a mirror is essential to most effectively employ this technique in most situations without being a rude boob.

But, if for some reason once in a while you don't move out of the way before they reach you, then the situation is no different from taking a lane because it is too narrow to be shared, or taking the lane because the shoulder or bike lane is obstructed, where you don't move out of the way either. In other words, it should be no big deal. I just don't do it when I don't have to to be considerate, not for safety reasons.

[Helmet Head]

And one last thing: posts which are posted here which do include personal information and do identify the cyclist who was killed, should be limited to expressions other than ones which attempt to analyze, rationalize, or say that "who and who would probably still be alive if they did this and this..." (again, to paraphrase).

Keep the internet analyses to threads which are case studies and don't refer to individual, slain, cyclists.
Brian,

I think you're confusing something here.

The reason medical cases studies are anonymous is because they reveal personal details that are otherwise not publically associated with that person. The obituary might say John Doe died of cancer, but the case study may go into details of what he went through. Obviously, there is no reason to unnecessarily associate that with John Doe.

Here, all we do is talk about information that is already public. We don't add any personal details, because we don't know of any to add, besides that which is already public.

Now, if you have personal knowledge about some personal details about someone involved in an incident that has been made public, personal details that have not been made public, then I could see making those details public here not being appropriate.

But I just don't understand the blanket objection to discussing a known public actual tragedy, and, in particular, how to avoid similar tragedies in the future.

If I understand your argument correctly, I believe you're saying it would be inappropriate to refer to what happened in 9/11, and how, in a forum discussing how to avoid future terrorist attacks. I don't get it.

[genec]

Wow?
So... Wow? No, I for one am not surprised at all. This is typical behavior for drivers, and I see no way to change that (just as I see no way to stop them from rolling across some stop signs). The only thing I see is a need to get them to realize that the shoulder or bike lane I'm in is NOT empty before they overtake me. And the only way I know to do that is to get their attention before they reach me, by being where they are paying attention, in their intended path up ahead, and, then, moving aside into the shoulder only after I have their attention.

Two feet is a lot of drift. I see motorists crossing the lines, but not that much... but again I can't help but wonder what the underlying situation was in the example... The motorists I see drifting are generally doing it because they are poorly controlling a speeding car. Other reasons may involve sleeping motorists.

In the latter situation I doubt that the motorist would be aware of a cyclist anywhere on the road.

Two feet is a lot of uncontrolled lateral movement. That is why I say "wow."

[genec]

I should add that there can be no such thing as "accident analysis" on the internet. There is, simply, no possible way enough information can be obtained to really analyze a real accident through the third and fourth hand information we get through the media. To do real accident analysis, you have to be on physically on scene of the actual accident (so you can see the subtlies of terrain, damage, and environment), and you have to be specifically trained to know what you are seeing as you see it.

All there can be, on the internet, are case studies, which are intended as teaching tools and, by definition, are self contained, provide limited information and are limited in scope.

+10

[galen_52657]

Nobody missed what you where saying. I posted a link to a post in the Bike Racing subforum. In that link is a link to a post with personal information about the deceased, posted by friends. I have been completely dispassionate in my post, unlike you.

Thankfully, the mods seem to recognize that discussing collisions between motorists and cyclists are part and parcel for the A & S forum.


You obviously missed what I was saying. Post a case study if you want. Just strip the personal details of who, when, and location. There is no point in having these details be part of your case study, except, perhaps, to inflame emotions of the cycling community and generate controversy. I won't answer to your case study, and nobody else should either, until you post the specific details sans any personal information which could lead to the slain cyclist being identified.

I have no problem with case studies - they can be very helpful as a teaching tool. I have a very real problem with using an intensely emotional (for some in the cycling community, obviously not yourself) event as "fodder" for a "debate."

Again, if you want this to be discussed by anyone else than HH; if you want this to teach anything to anybody; then repost your case study with details of the accident as it pertains to your teaching or discussion and sans any personal details of who was involved, when it happened, and where it happened. Instead of being lazy and saying "such and such road in greensville, OH," say: "on a 4 lane arterial road with shoulders but no bike lane around a gentle right hand bend...". This is how you describe a case study in neutral terms, so it can be studied free from emotional response.

Otherwise, I can only assume that your objective is to only inflame emotions and provoke controversy (which people of your ilk tend to confuse with "debate"), and is not to teach or analyze or study.

The moderators of this forum should kill any thread which seeks to capitalize on the deaths of real, identifiable, cyclists to "teach" or "study" or "debate" a subject. This forums has already gotten the reputation of being a not so very friendly place where all we do is shout, insult, and degrade each other. We can change that by making up some rules which case studies are posted. These rules should dictate that any post which seeks to capitalize on the death or serious injury of a real, identifiable, cyclist as a teaching or debating tool be immediately locked. Case studies should be allowed, and they can even be about current events, but they cannot identify the cyclist involved by either direct information, location, or time. The OP needs to be responsible for providing the details of the case study and not taking shortcuts such as simply naming an article in the paper or providing the cross street. This will ensure the discussion of the case study stays on track and the victim of the accident cannot be identified.

HH, galen, DC, and others who seem to prefer the emotionally charged way of teaching case studies; I'd suggest you work with me on this one. Every thread you fellows start with case studies are poorly thought out, poorly researched, and nearly always start with a clip from a news article. Every thread of this ilk veers off within the first page by people who are offended by your "discussion method." The common result is that there are 5 or 6 pages of insults, no discussion except by a few hard headed individuals such as HH or galen, and as a result, not discussion of the ideas the OP was trying to present. It doesn't help when the OP uses inflamatory language such as "another case of a bike lane killing another cyclist" (paraphrased, of course). As a result of there not being any discussion, there is no exchange of ideas, and no teaching. A newbe who happens upon one of these threads simply doesn't learn anything except that there is some sort of "controversy," and/or gets disgusted by the whole thing.

So, galen: Please, if your aim is to teach or discuss, repost this as a cleaned up case study which is self contained so we can have a proper discussion of traffic cycling technique and philosophy. I don't mind these (I don't think anyone minds these), and I've participated in several in the past.

[Brian Ratliff]

That dispassion, along with the disclosure of the subject of your case study, which is your disclosure by way of posting the link with such information, is the reason why the mods should close this thread. Dispassion when studying a case study is okay. Dispassionate analysis about a real person from a person not in a position of authority to do that analysis, and, indeed, who doesn't even have access to the information needed to do such an analysis, is disrespectful.

Again, please. If your aim is to teach or discuss, repost this as a case study devoid of details (and devoid of any link posting to details) and provide enough details about the case you want to study to make the case study self contained. Otherwise you are simply trying to provoke controversy. This forum, obviously, is pretty much left alone by the mods. But there are enough people (aren't they your target audience anyway?) who agree with me on this point that you should follow this advisement simply as a way to get your point across.

Unless, that is, it is not your objective to teach and discuss, but only to provoke emotional controversy and use someone's death as fodder to win a debate point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now...

[Helmet Head]

That dispassion, along with the disclosure of the subject of your case study, which is your disclosure by way of posting the link with such information, is the reason why the mods should close this thread. Dispassion when studying a case study is okay. Dispassionate analysis about a real person from a person not in a position of authority to do that analysis, and, indeed, who doesn't even have access to the information needed to do such an analysis, is disrespectful.
It is disrespectful? How so? I really don't get this!

For the record, if I ever get killed in a bike-car collision, I'm sure Gene, John E and few others here will hear about it and pass it on, and I would HOPE and EXPECT all of you guys to analyze, speculate and do all you can with learning whatever you can about the cause of my death, and what cyclists may or may not do to avoid a similar fate in the future. If, in the process, my death leads you to discuss related but not necessarily directly connected cycling safety issues, so much the better. I don't understand the harm or "disrespect" in any of that.

[Helmet Head]

I created a poll to see how everyone feels about whether this type of thread is appropriate.

Poll: Forum etiquette - cyclist death threads (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228712)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

IMO all the posts on this thread other than Brian's are nauseating drivel from ghouls.

[galen_52657]

IMO all the posts on this thread other than Brian's are nauseating drivel from ghouls.


From Salem, aye?

[mac]

HH, regarding the other thread where the bicyclist was riding in a wide shoulder and got killed...

I do use my mirror when I'm on city steets or busy, yet compact residential streets. But it's a PITA and really takes away the enjoyment from cycling. I love it when I reach a highway, such as certain sections of PCH, where there is no cross traffic and a huge shoulder. I can finally pedal and "space out" enjoying the weather, the bicycling, the wind in my face, etc.

In cases where you have no choice and need to share a lane with a motorist, I'll take the lane until a car(s) backs up behind me, and there is a stretch of road where it is safe for me to pedal to the right, and let the car(s) go. But in cases where there is a wide shoulder (i.e. it could easily be turned into a bike lane) and minimal cross-streets, I'll stay in the shoulder and "space out." How can one enjoy cycling if he's always checking his mirrors, switching lane position, etc.?

[Helmet Head]

Mac, I hear you. The call to "space out" is strong.

And maybe the tradeoff is worth it to you on roads like PCH with huge shoulders.
But I've read about too many of these fatalities in which an inadvertent drift is factor.
And, somehow I've established the mirror use habit to the point where it's effortless and not a PITA. In fact, I honestly have learned to enjoy "monitoring traffic" with my mirror and otherwise.

It's a different kind of fun than "space out" cycling, but it's still fun. I reserve "space out" cycling for bike paths (but not where they cross streets!).

[mac]

Bike paths! Argh! :p That's where I can't "space out" unless it's empty. Usually there are kids, teens, and co-eds on blades, boards, cruisers, etc., plus pedestrians, tourists, etc. I need to focus on a bike path and can't enjoy not thinking.

The only time I do enjoy "monitoring traffic" is when I'm splitting lanes on the freeway on my motorcycle. I'm 100% focused on riding because one wrong move and I'm in the hospital or dead.

And regarding inadvertent drift, if that kind of motorist is behind me, I'm not sure how lane positioning is going to help. How close do you let the motorist get before pulling over of the side? We can be great vehicle operators, but the vehicles we operate stand absolutely no chance against anything on the road. That means we have to trust that other motorists will drive in a predictable way (i.e. rules of the road).

[serpico7]

But in cases where there is a wide shoulder (i.e. it could easily be turned into a bike lane) and minimal cross-streets, I'll stay in the shoulder and "space out." How can one enjoy cycling if he's always checking his mirrors, switching lane position, etc.?
You don't expect motorists to "space out", do you? How do Porsche drivers enjoy their cars without "spacing out"?

We share the roads with other moving vehicles - no one should be "spacing out". Go to a deserted velodrome if you don't want to pay attention to what's going on around you.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, I mean empty bike paths for "spacing out". I agree most are not appropriate for spacing out.

[Blue Order]

This appears to be "textbook" inattentional blindness (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html) leading to inadvertent drift into what cognitively seemed to be an empty shoulder to the driver.:lol:

[Blue Order]

The moderators of this forum should kill any thread which seeks to capitalize on the deaths of real, identifiable, cyclists to "teach" or "study" or "debate" a subject. This forums has already gotten the reputation of being a not so very friendly place where all we do is shout, insult, and degrade each other. We can change that by making up some rules which case studies are posted. These rules should dictate that any post which seeks to capitalize on the death or serious injury of a real, identifiable, cyclist as a teaching or debating tool be immediately locked. Case studies should be allowed, and they can even be about current events, but they cannot identify the cyclist involved by either direct information, location, or time. The OP needs to be responsible for providing the details of the case study and not taking shortcuts such as simply naming an article in the paper or providing the cross street. This will ensure the discussion of the case study stays on track and the victim of the accident cannot be identified.I don't care for Helmet Head's hearse-chasing antics one bit. However, neither would I care for Helmet Head altering the real-life facts for a case study so that the facts would conveniently fit what he's trying to prove. He already alters the real-life facts regularly. If he's making up a case study, he'll just create whatever set of facts he needs to prove that he's been right all along. I don't know what the solution is, but hopefully it won't be this suggestion.

[Brian Ratliff]

I don't care for Helmet Head's hearse-chasing antics one bit. However, neither would I care for Helmet Head altering the real-life facts for a case study so that the facts would conveniently fit what he's trying to prove. He already alters the real-life facts regularly. If he's making up a case study, he'll just create whatever set of facts he needs to prove that he's been right all along. I don't know what the solution is, but hopefully it won't be this suggestion.

A case study lays out the problem. The discussion regards the solution. The whole point is not to prove HH is always wrong; his proposed solutions work in some instances and I use a somewhat modified version of how he rides in certain situations and in certain environments (my objections usually center around his absolutist stance regarding bike lanes; look at some of the earlier posts in the "Bike Lanes" thread to see some of HH and my previous arguments - let me tell you, it was a lot more civil at that time in this forum). The reason why case studies are used is to devorce the sometimes sticky reality into a small, compact set of facts and problems so that these problems can be analyzed easily. They are teaching devices. You don't learn engineering by setting out to build a skyscraper. You learn by taking a single beam or stucture in abstract. As your understanding of the engineering problems progress, the problems get more and more complex until you can finally try your hand at building a skyscraper with a fairly good probably of succeeding. My intent with this suggestion is to change this forum from a place where people "shout" rude things at people to a place where we can discuss the problems of traffic cycling (and other types of cycling, as well as advocacy efforts) civily and, perhaps, learn something in the process.

The point is to determine what riding styles work best and when. Feel free to post case studies of your own which highlight the situations where HH's solutions don't work as well so we can discuss them.

[Helmet Head]

He already alters the real-life facts regularly.
Please do not confuse creating hypothetical situations - and being clear about doing that - based, or loosely based, on real-life events - with altering the real-life facts. Altering the real-life facts would be claiming that something actually happened in real-life, when it did not. If it were true that I did that, you should have no trouble finding examples of where I altered the real-life facts. I'm not holding my breath...

[Helmet Head]

Feel free to post case studies of your own which highlight the situations where HH's solutions don't work as well so we can discuss them.
:beer:

I would be the first to welcome the posting of such case studies!

[DrPete]

So if all it takes is a full lane to keep people from "spacing out," then not a single car should get rear-ended today, right? I mean, they all have taillights and make their presence known a lot more obviously than bikes, don't they?

[DrPete]

What "sensitive personal details" were mentioned in the OP that warrants this comment in this thead?

Rider's name, home, photos, family, name of the driver, you name it.

If I started a presentation on colon cancer with "Mr. Smith died the other day with stage 4 colon cancer because Dr. Jones missed the diagnosis," I'd be in blatant, intentional violation of HIPAA and would be subject to fines and possible jail time. Even if both people gave consent, the information would have to be sufficiently de-identified.

Granted, those standards don't exist on the internet, so we erroneously rely on decency to keep from naming names of the dead people we blame for their deaths. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

if all it takes is a full lane to keep people from "spacing out," then ...
Since it's not true that "all it takes is a full lane to keep people from 'spacing out,'" and no one has claimed that to be true, anything that follows from that is immaterial.

If I started a presentation on colon cancer with "Mr. Smith died the other day with stage 4 colon cancer because Dr. Jones missed the diagnosis," I'd be in blatant, intentional violation of HIPAA and would be subject to fines and possible jail time.
Of course you would. That's because you would be making public personal information (details about his illness) about Mr. Smith without his consent.

No one reveals any personal information (that isn't already public) about anyone in these threads, so I don't understand the connection.

[DrPete]

Since it's not true that "all it takes is a full lane to keep people from 'spacing out,'" and no one has claimed that to be true, anything that follows from that is immaterial.

But as I understand your argument, the lane itself is where we should protect ourselves from the "inattentional bllindness" phenomenon you so eloquently discuss, correct? Great website, by the way--I'll be sure to drop them a line next time I run over a pedestrian--they'd make great defense "expert" witnesses.

How many cars do you think got rear-ended on the roads of this country today? They were well outside any "inattentional blindness" zones, I'm sure. I'm also guessing that the number is orders of magnitude greater than the number of cyclists who got rear-ended today, or even the number of parked cars that were hit.

My own personal stats would back this up. I've been rear-ended in my car 3 times in the 7 years I've lived in DC. These were all on roads where I've also ridden my bike. How many times have I been rear-ended while riding my bike on the shoulder or the white line, to include rides at night and in bad weather? Zero.

So, if you look at rear-end collisions per day, I think you'd find the bike lane or shoulder a pretty safe place to be.

But you're encouraging people to ride in a place on the road where basically all of the rear-ending happens in order to protect them from being rear-ended? That's absolutely friggin' brilliant.

[Bekologist]

i'm starting a Wide shoulders- where do you ride? thread right now.

I will prepare a case study with photos of a road and detail a scenario involving two logging trucks, a bicyclist, a highway speed roadway and a wide shoulder. let us then discuss the solutions.

i know discussions of road case studies I've posted in the last year and a half have been obtusely beaten into the ground by the sophister blather and insufferable rantings of helmet heds' armchair bicycling.

anyway, i digress. onto the "Two logging trucks, one bicyclist, and a 12 foot shoulder" case study.

[Blue Order]

Please do not confuse creating hypothetical situations - and being clear about doing that - based, or loosely based, on real-life events - with altering the real-life facts.I'm not confused in the least about you.

Altering the real-life facts would be claiming that something actually happened in real-life, when it did not.Which is exactly what you do. And everybody here knows it.

If it were true that I did that, you should have no trouble finding examples of where I altered the real-life facts. I'm not holding my breath...Almost every post you make, HH.

Here's one-- the easiest for me to find in a 10 second search-- where you didn't alter the facts, you just invented them:

Now that I watched the video... the cyclist apparently moved laterally (left, to go around the police car) without having the right of way to do so, suddenly moving right in front of the car that was overtaking him.

Did I miss something?

[Blue Order]

:beer:

I would be the first to welcome the posting of such case studies!No surprise there. At last Helmet Head can alter the real-life facts of real-life events, and nobody will be able to call him on it.

[Blue Order]

A case study lays out the problem. The discussion regards the solution. The whole point is not to prove HH is always wrong; his proposed solutions work in some instances and I use a somewhat modified version of how he rides in certain situations and in certain environments (my objections usually center around his absolutist stance regarding bike lanes; look at some of the earlier posts in the "Bike Lanes" thread to see some of HH and my previous arguments - let me tell you, it was a lot more civil at that time in this forum). The reason why case studies are used is to devorce the sometimes sticky reality into a small, compact set of facts and problems so that these problems can be analyzed easily. They are teaching devices. You don't learn engineering by setting out to build a skyscraper. You learn by taking a single beam or stucture in abstract. As your understanding of the engineering problems progress, the problems get more and more complex until you can finally try your hand at building a skyscraper with a fairly good probably of succeeding. My intent with this suggestion is to change this forum from a place where people "shout" rude things at people to a place where we can discuss the problems of traffic cycling (and other types of cycling, as well as advocacy efforts) civily and, perhaps, learn something in the process.

The point is to determine what riding styles work best and when. Feel free to post case studies of your own which highlight the situations where HH's solutions don't work as well so we can discuss them.I understand. But what use is it to read a thread where HH alters the real-life facts just enough to prove he's right? We already know what he thinks, so why have thread after thread of case-study drivel that conveniently "proves" that Helmet Head has been right all along?

[galen_52657]

I've been rear-ended in my car 3 times in the 7 years I've lived in DC.

Being rear-ended in heavy urban traffic I would think would not have much to do with inattention, as it would to speeding, aggressive driving, tailgating or any combination (or changing lanes than slamming on the brakes).

But sometimes, there's just on rational for what happened.

[Helmet Head]

If it were true that I did that [alter real-life facts], you should have no trouble finding examples of where I altered the real-life facts. I'm not holding my breath...

Here's one-- the easiest for me to find in a 10 second search-- where you didn't alter the facts, you just invented them:


... the cyclist apparently ...


Blue Order - what part of "apparently" do you not understand?

That is not an example of altering real-life facts. It is an example of speculating about what may have happened, or what apparently happened, which I've never denied doing. You accused me of something else entirely: altering facts, which, again implies saying they are something that I know they are not.

If you can't back up your accusations about others, you should probably not make them.

[Blue Order]

Blue Order - what part of "apparently" do you not understand?

That is not an example of altering real-life facts. It is an example of speculating about what may have happened, or what apparently happened, which I've never denied doing. You accused me of something else entirely: altering facts, which, again implies saying they are something that I know they are not.

If you can't back up your accusations about others, you should probably not make them.And what part of "inventing" did you not understand? I clearly said you didn't alter these facts, you invented them.

[Helmet Head]

And what part of "inventing" did you not understand? I clearly said you didn't alter these facts, you invented them.
Inventing is part of speculation. Whether I speculate is not at issue. The debate is about whether I alter facts, is it not? Or are you retracting that contention?

Speculating about what the unknown facts are, by "inventing" hypothetical possible ones, is not altering known facts, which is what you accused me of doing:


He already alters the real-life facts regularly.

Now, please produce some basis for this accusation, or retract it. If you don't do one or the other (in this thread, within 48 hours), I'm going to put you on ignore, because, regrettably, you're proving to be a disingenuous time sink. I say regrettably, because some of the discussion we do have I do find valuable. But then you seem to get wrapped up in just ragging on me, and we spiral into this unhealthy cr@p. So, I hope you retract (of course I don't hope you actually find evidence for your accusation, but I'd prefer that to you neither producing the evidence nor retracting, and thus me having to put you on ignore).

[Blue Order]

I'd say altering facts is inventing them too. I only used this example because it was the most recent and easily found example. So I guess you want me to search for altered facts....

[Helmet Head]

No, I want you to retract, or clarify that what you meant by "regularly altering facts" was not altering facts, but speculating about what the facts might be.