Google sponsored links
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.
And if I'm riding my bike in the traffic lane and get rear-ended, it wouldn't much matter WHY it happened, would it?
My chances of getting struck by a car rise exponentially if I'm in the traffic lane, because I'm "just another vehicle," right?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
And if I'm riding my bike in the traffic lane and get rear-ended, it wouldn't much matter WHY it happened, would it?
My chances of getting struck by a car rise exponentially if I'm in the traffic lane, because I'm "just another vehicle," right?
There are too many variables to make accurate predictions. When you were hit from behind what lane were you in? How many lanes did the road have? I have not ridden my bike in DC but in Baltimore, riding in the right-hand traffic lane (and in the 'burbs) in heavy traffic, I find autos don't tailgate. DC may be just a whole nother can of worms....
There are too many variables to make accurate predictions. When you were hit from behind what lane were you in? How many lanes did the road have? I have not ridden my bike in DC but in Baltimore, riding in the right-hand traffic lane (and in the 'burbs) in heavy traffic, I find autos don't tailgate. DC may be just a whole nother can of worms....
My point is that it doesn't matter, because I think if the data were available we'd see that the frequency of cyclists getting hit on the shoulder is vanishingly small when compared to the number of VEHICLES struck in the traffic lanes.
When I've been rear-ended in my car once was on a busy 4-lane road and I was in the right lane. The second time I was in downtown DC at a red light. The third I don't remember.
I guess my point is that if someone is zoned out enough to collide with a car from behind, what delusion are we all buying into to believe that a cyclist will somehow meet a different outcome? On top of that, the chance of dying or being seriously injured in a rear-end crash on a bike is exponentially greater than in a car.
OOO
Charm City vs. D.C fight.
...Gets Popcorn :D
-D
DrPete - please consider that emergency vehicles who stop in shoulders, with lights flashing that even mech could only dream about, are all too often rear-ended.
You don't seem to considering the role of inattentional blindness in rear-enders.
You're also writing like someone with very little experience taking the lane while on a bicycle. Otherwise, you would know how much more space and attention cyclists get when in the center of a traffic lane than car drivers typically get.
The real comparison should be with motorcycle rear-enders. How common are they? Do you advocate that motorcyclists should ride in bike lanes and shoulders to reduce their chances of getting rear-ended?
You don't seem to considering the role of inattentional blindness in rear-enders.
You're also writing like someone with very little experience taking the lane while on a bicycle. Otherwise, you would know how much more space and attention cyclists get when in the center of a traffic lane than car drivers typically get.
The real comparison should be with motorcycle rear-enders. How common are they? Do you advocate that motorcyclists should ride in bike lanes and shoulders to reduce their chances of getting rear-ended?
I do conceptually understand the inattentional blindness argument. What I'm trying to say is that there's clearly some other mechanism by which rear-end collisions occur, because if inattentional blindness were the only major factor then nobody in the traffic lanes would ever get rear-ended, and we know that's not true.
I have taken the lane while on a bike, primarily when I'm approaching a busy intersection to get into the appropriate lane for the direction I want to travel. I've also been yelled at, honked at, and almost run off the road for it. And while in a perfect world it would be great to just be able to take the lane and have the motorist behind you marvel at how conscientious you are, I think it can often open people up to hostility and other dangerous activities from motorists. Thankfully I don't live in one of the really bad ares, but VC as a practice in places that are particularly hostile to cyclists seems a bit suicidal to me.
Finally, the issue of motorcycles. Their ability to keep up with traffic at all speeds just like a car makes them a completely different animal from a bicycle. If anything, the "real comparison" should be made to horse-drawn carriages, farm equipment, and other inherently slow (by comparison) vehicles. And no, I have no idea where to find the stats on how often/where they are rear-ended.
Maybe VC is a great idea in some bike-friendly areas. Maybe with smarter drivers it would work great. But I think the bottom line is that driver training does a horrible job of addressing bicyles, respect for human life is at an all-time low on the roads of America, and I just have a hard time adopting VC as a solution to crashes which, while horribly unfortunate, remain a very small subset of vehicular accidents in the US.
Very few people, if any, would call most of my commute "bike friendly". I've had a 40 year old engineer tell me that he would not drive his Mazda Miata on the road I that I ride on everyday - because it (his sportscar!) is too small! But it's bike friendly for me. I have learned that "bike friendly" is a dynamic social characteristic of those around the cyclist that depends much more on the behavior of the cyclist than on any other factor. Remember, the drivers behind the wheels of all those cars are nothing more than glorified apes.
As far as motorcycles... you can't have it both ways. You use as evidence the numbers of cars that are rear-ended. And then you say motorcyclists don't count because they can keep up with traffic like a car. Well cars can keep up with traffic like a car, yet they get rear-ended. So why cars, and not motoryclists?
I have taken the lane while on a bike, primarily when I'm approaching a busy intersection to get into the appropriate lane for the direction I want to travel. I've also been yelled at, honked at, and almost run off the road for it.
Me too, before I realized I wasn't being assertive and clear about what I was doing, and motorists were just trying to intimidate me. So I changed my attitude to no longer allow anyone to intimidate me, adjusted my lane positioning (and probably subconsciously my body posture and body language) accordingly, and not only do I not care on the rare occasions when someone still tries to intimidate me, but it happens almost never now. If you act like a vehicle driver, they will treat you like a vehicle driver. If you act like you're not sure if it's okay to act like a vehicle driver, they will sense it and will try to intimidate the cr@p out of you... Smile and wave back, and get more assertive. They'll all but stop sooner than you can imagine.
As far as motorcycles... you can't have it both ways. You use as evidence the numbers of cars that are rear-ended. And then you say motorcyclists don't count because they can keep up with traffic like a car. Well cars can keep up with traffic like a car, yet they get rear-ended. So why cars, and not motoryclists?
I didn't say that motorcycles didn't count. I'm sure they get rear-ended in traffic too. What I was referring to was the fact that their behavior on the road is decidedly more car-like, i.e. won't be found going 15 mph in the traffic lane on a road.
If you act like a vehicle driver, they will treat you like a vehicle driver. If you act like you're not sure if it's okay to act like a vehicle driver, they will sense it and will try to intimidate the cr@p out of you... Smile and wave back, and get more assertive. They'll all but stop sooner than you can imagine.
I'm plenty assertive when I change lanes/take a lane to turn. The problem is that "assertive" motorists around here become victims of road rage incidents about as frequently as bikes are hit. Taking and keeping the lane tends to infuriate drivers around here, and unless I start carrying a gun the motorist is the only one in the argument with a deadly weapon.
Taking and keeping the lane tends to infuriate drivers around here, ...
Taking the lane infurates drivers when when there is no safe and reasonable alternative? So what do you do? Risk life and limb so as not to infuriate drivers?
And if there is a safe and reasonable alternative to taking the lane, then why take the lane?
Sorry, I'm not following.
Taking the lane infurates drivers when when there is no safe and reasonable alternative? So what do you do? Risk life and limb so as not to infuriate drivers?
And if there is a safe and reasonable alternative to taking the lane, then why take the lane?
Sorry, I'm not following.
I'm not talking about situations where there is no safe and reasonable alternative. In those rare cases I'll take the lane, and in most city riding situations motorists don't have a problem with it.
But aren't you arguing that we should ALWAYS take the lane? I mean, the rider mentioned in the OP was 2 feet from the fog line, and you're claiming that he was in an unsafe place on the road.
So by your rationale, there is almost never a safe and reasonable alternative, so I was basing my argument on the fact that you seem to advocate always taking the lane. That's what I have the problem with.
But aren't you arguing that we should ALWAYS take the lane?
No.
I'm arguing that cyclists should take the lane by default WHEN SAME-DIRECTION TRAFFIC IS NOT PRESENT You know, when no drivers would be "infuriated" by your doing so.
If your taking the lane is going to impede others, THEN you should only do so when there is no safe and reasonable alternative (like the lane is too narrow, you're approaching an intersection where you're going straight, etc.).
It's amazing to me that no matter how carefully I say it, no matter how many times, people continue to get the impression that I'm calling for taking the lane when doing so would impede others and there is a safe and reasonable alternative to taking the lane (like moving into a shoulder or bike lane).
I mean, the rider mentioned in the OP was 2 feet from the fog line, and you're claiming that he was in an unsafe place on the road.
I never said he was in an unsafe place on the road. I suggested that if here were riding further left while there was no same-direction traffic present, and so was more cognitively conspicuous as the driver was approaching, but still moved aside before the driver reached him, then he would more likely have the driver's attention as the driver passed him, and thus would be less likely to fall victim to inattentional blindness and inadvertent drift.
But I never said the cyclist should have been in the lane at the time he was being overtaken.
I never said he was in an unsafe place on the road. I suggested that if here were riding further left while there was no same-direction traffic present, and so was more cognitively conspicuous as the driver was approaching, but still moved aside before the driver reached him, then he would more likely have the driver's attention as the driver passed him, and thus would be less likely to fall victim to inattentional blindness and inadvertent drift.
But I never said the cyclist should have been in the lane at the time he was being overtaken.I was rear-ended in my car, while stopped at a red light, in broad daylight on a clear day. There were 10 other cars stopped at the light in front of me. The girl who rear-ended me never even hit her brakes. Your theories can't account for that collision, nor do they take into acount the results of placing all cyclists in the motor vehicle traffic lanes.
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:
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).Ah, Helmet, still looking. The latest entry (below) is another example of inventing facts, rather than altering facts:
When a bus cuts in front of a cognitively inconspicuous cyclist riding outside of the space where the driver is paying attention, and the cyclist crashes into the bus, it's accurate to say the cyclist collided with the bus.Totally fabricated in your imagination.
I'll keep looking for altered facts.
Still looking for altered facts. so far no luck, just loads of invented facts. Here are two more (highlighted):
Yes, technically, it's the motorist's fault. But he did nothing different from what most motorists do all the time... look for oncoming traffic where one might expect oncoming traffic - in the traffic lane - before turning left. Expecting that he also remember to look in a special area for cyclists off to the side is unrealistic. He's human, folks. Human.
...
What's possibly even more tragic is that Oregon cycling advocates are buying into this idea that the only solution here is to punish motorists until motorists change - that the cyclist was doing nothing wrong - that there should be no emphasis on getting cyclists to merge left out of the danger zone in these situations. That's a real tragedy too.Two invented facts in one post. Bravo.
But at least they're not altered facts. Where there are no facts, nothing wrong with inserting your own, eh?
I suggested that if here were riding further left while there was no same-direction traffic present, and so was more cognitively conspicuous as the driver was approaching, but still moved aside before the driver reached him, then he would more likely have the driver's attention as the driver passed him, and thus would be less likely to fall victim to inattentional blindness and inadvertent drift.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe it's your method rather than your message, HH...
When a bus cuts in front of a cognitively inconspicuous cyclist riding outside of the space where the driver is paying attention, and the cyclist crashes into the bus, it's accurate to say the cyclist collided with the bus.
So are you saying that the cyclist was at fault?
You don't happen to work as a defense attorney, do you, HH?
Was anyone else taught in Driver's Ed class that you should avoid tunnel vision and keep looking at the WHOLE road? Fighter pilots call it situational awareness. I think most others call it "paying attention to what you're doing."
We cyclists are expected to do it, why not the motorists?
"Yes, officer, I was going 75 mph, but the speed limit sign is way over there on the side of the road, rendering it cognitively inconspicuous, so I had no way of knowing I was speeding."
I'll have to try that one next time. :rolleyes:
Was anyone else taught in Driver's Ed class that you should avoid tunnel vision and keep looking at the WHOLE road? Fighter pilots call it situational awareness. I think most others call it "paying attention to what you're doing."
We cyclists are expected to do it, why not the motorists?I take in even more than the road. I take in the lands bordering the road, because children and animals are notorious for darting into traffic. I also look both ways as I enter an intersection, because I know some people run red lights. It's all situational awareness. Also helps me know where the cops are. :D
So are you saying that the cyclist was at fault?
You don't happen to work as a defense attorney, do you, HH?That was a post where the news story simply said that a cyclist collided with a bus and was killed. Helmet Head was kind enough to invent those facts about the accident so we would all know what actually happened.
I take in even more than the road. I take in the lands bordering the road, because children and animals are notorious for darting into traffic. I also look both ways as I enter an intersection, because I know some people run red lights. It's all situational awareness. Also helps me know where the cops are. :D
+1. I do the same thing, scoping for cops included. :beer:
That was a post where the news story simply said that a cyclist collided with a bus and was killed. Helmet Head was kind enough to invent those facts about the accident so we would all know what actually happened.
Ah... got it. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Ah... got it. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
I stated clearly in that post that I was not referring to the actual incident.
Of course, DrPete neglected to including that part of my post.
But sticking to the truth and facts is not his strongsuit.
+1. I do the same thing, scoping for cops included. :beer:
I never scope for police when driving. Why should I?
Are you suggesting you drive your motor vehicle in such a way as to be conspicuously more dangerous to other road users?
Al
I never scope for police when driving. Why should I?
Are you suggesting you drive your motor vehicle in such a way as to be conspicuously more dangerous to other road users?
Al
Yes. On interstates I sometimes drive 5-20mph over the posted speed limit.
Around here, though, that's called keeping up with traffic.
The self-righteous tone of your post did not go unappreciated, however.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.