I haven't seen shoulders that wide since I lived where it snowed regularly. None of the roads I ride regularly have paved shoulders wider than a foot or two, so I never ride on those shoulders.

A couple times a year I ride on a busy highway with shoulders that vary from 4 to 6 or 8 feet wide. It carries lots of boat-trailer traffic. Where it is clean and there are no junctions I ride on the shoulder. But often I need to ride just into the travel lane because of all the gravel and other debris tracked out from unpaved driveways.

Going strictly from the photo:

This road appears fairly new and thus free from the steep grades and sharp turns that one might find in say, West Virginia, on a road heading to the pulp mill. Also, the wide shoulders increase the sight lines around turns. Additionally, the shoulders appear in the photo to have the same paving quality as the travel lanes and be free of debris.

That being said I would ride in the shoulder except if descending a hill that was long and steep enough to have me catching up with traffic.

If there were long breaks between vehicles, I might move left into the lane and monitor things with my mirror. But, if I where to do that it would most likely be on the flats or descents where closing speed to oncoming vehicles would be higher and a large bail-out area to the right would be beneficial.

It is easy to interpret that you are saying be in the lane in this situation. Many times, it is not possible to know whether there is same-direction traffic on some of these roads, as they twist around and do not allow visibility for the distance required to see same-direction traffic.
Please do me a favor. Please do not "interpret", no matter how easy it may seem. If you think I'm implying something, please verify before you assume it to be true. That would probably reduce the unproductive back and forth required for correction and clarification by perhaps an order of magnitude.

Obviously, if conditions are such that "it is not possible to know whether there is same-direction traffic on some of these roads", then I would ride accordingly. Doing what is safe and reasonable is always a guiding principle. While the OP mentioned curves, my post was mostly based about what was depicted in the photo - a long straight stretch with perhaps a curve at the end of it... long sight lines. Please "interpret" it accordingly and do not read anything into it.

I am having a hard time seeing me coming around a blind curve at 60mph.

That said, as a truck driver I can tell you that scenario could be unpleasant.

If I were to come around a corner at 60mph with a load, and see a bicycle in the center of the lane 1000ft away,
First I **** my pants
Now I am down to 800 ft
Next I apply brakes.
Then I ask myself, is this a drunk
Now I am down to 700 ft
Will he fall in the middle of the road?
Is that really a bike?
Now I am down 600 ft
I wonder if it’s a Carbon fiber frame
Apply more brakes
I wonder if he has DA or Campy
Now I get out a calculator and determine that I need at least 300 feet to stop
Check my mirrors
I wonder what kinda wheels he has
By now I figure I am down to 500 ft
If he still hasn’t moved I start looking for my emergency rout to keep from hitting him if I cant slow down fast enough.

Now if I had 2000ft things change.
I just lift of the pedal and begin to slow down and see what he will do next.
And check out his wheels as I go by.
What is the 60 to 40 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on the flats?
What is the 40 to 20 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on a gradual climb?
What is the 60 to 50 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on a downhill?

Those are the only numbers that matter for flats, gradual climbs, or downhills, because, those are the worst case requirements for what logging truck driver might have to do if he noticed a cyclist using DLP up ahead. But in most if not all cases all he would have to do is maybe take his foot of the gas for a couple of seconds.

You guys seem to be picturing coming around a blind corner at 60 mph and seeing a cyclist in the middle of the road 1000 feet up ahead who is barely moving, or stopped, and doing nothing to get out of the way. No one is suggesting riding in a manner that would cause anything close to that situation.

Please do me a favor. Please do not "interpret", no matter how easy it may seem. If you think I'm implying something, please verify before you assume it to be true. That would probably reduce the unproductive back and forth required for correction and clarification by perhaps an order of magnitude.

Obviously, if conditions are such that "it is not possible to know whether there is same-direction traffic on some of these roads", then I would ride accordingly. Doing what is safe and reasonable is always a guiding principle. While the OP mentioned curves, my post was mostly based about what was depicted in the photo - a long straight stretch with perhaps a curve at the end of it... long sight lines. Please "interpret" it accordingly and do not read anything into it.
Everyone intreprets what people say according to their own internal experiences. Interpretation is inevitable whenever something is processed in someone's brain. This is because words do not completely describe experiences; there is no touch, hearing, feeling, sensing in words, so those must be interpreted.

I just came from vacation to Chicago and Toronto. It is apparent that many people cannot imagine the terraine in the Pacific Northwest if they have not been here. While this is a "case study," it is also a place to describe concepts and interpret ideas. Chicago and Toronto are flat, without what we would call "hills," much less mountains. Most logging in the Pacific Northwest is in mountainous terraine, in National Forests, private forests (not for subdivision, but actual forests). Having visibility is the exception, not the rule here. So I interpret these statements as they would apply to my experience in the Pacific Northwest, where I have worked as a safety consultant for a state-owned worker's compensation firm for 18 years. I have investigated log truck accidents and fatalities. I pretty well know the capabilities of these trucks, the truck drivers who drive them, and the firms that employ them. That is why I posted what I have posted.

Log loads are rarely weighed, as the truck drivers know where the weigh stations are located, and if there is a way to the mill that goes around them, they will find it. The log loader operators, for the most part, are very good about placing the loads onto the trucks, but not always. Sometimes, they try to load it too high, and the truck driver is either forced to tell the loader operator to remove a log, reset it, or simply take the load down to the mill in an unsafe condition. By Oregon code, the log load must be stable in the bunk stakes without the wrappers (stable within the vertical members without wire rope holding them in place). This sometimes does not occur, and the top logs may only be held by the wrappers, which while illegal, does happen. These can shift with movement, and that can cause the log to be lost to the side of the truck--a rarety, but it does happen.

John

Any road that's twisting around enough to not allow one to see same direction traffic for any significant amount of time is a road where big trucks will not be going full speed.

Log trucks in OR, WA, and CA do go full speed on such a road. Really.

Everyone intreprets what people say according to their own internal experiences. Interpretation is inevitable whenever something is processed in someone's brain. This is because words do not completely describe experiences; there is no touch, hearing, feeling, sensing in words, so those must be interpreted.
Exactly. I'm just asking you to keep that in mind as you're reading my posts (or anyone's posts). That is, remember that the picture you're getting in your mind as you read my words is not necessarily the picture I intended to convey. Ask some questions to see if we're communicating before you assume that we are. Okay?

Log trucks in OR, WA, and CA do go full speed on such a road. Really.

I tend to agree... I don't know how they do it, but they do... I don't think they are driving "full speed," but they certainly take the roads at a higher speed than one might expect.

But I don't think those guys are quite the hazard of say RV motorists that don't drive their rigs on these types of roads daily, or the sports car or motorcycle enthusiast that tries to "push the envelope" on these types of roads.

Exactly. I'm just asking you to keep that in mind as you're reading my posts (or anyone's posts). That is, remember that the picture you're getting in your mind as you read my words is not necessarily the picture I intended to convey. Ask some questions to see if we're communicating before you assume that we are. Okay?
I understand. I'm just trying to keep someone from interpreting out-of-context too. Several responders cited your words in saying that, in this circumstance (less visibility than in the photo), they would consider taking the lane. People just don't understand some of the physics of these huge vehicles, and make assumptions based upon past experiences which may or may not apply with fully-loaded log trucks.

Thanks though.

John

Helmet head.

I am not taking a stand on one side of the topic or the other.

But I was just wondering,

If you are in the lane on a nice straight road, no hills, no curves.
I am aproaching in a loaded truck, at a legal speed of 60mph,
At what distance do you move to the side?

Helmet head.

I am not taking a stand on one side of the topic or the other.

But I was just wondering,

If you are in the lane on a nice straight road, no hills, no curves.
I am aproaching in a loaded truck, at a legal speed of 60mph,
At what distance do you move to the side?
Since I don't ride with a measuring tape, I can't give you an objective answer.
The best I can do is subjective: late enough to significantly increase the chance that you are cognitively aware of my presence before I move into the shoulder where I am more prone to be overlooked due to inattentional blindness, but soon enough so as not to create panic or become a hazard.

Since I don't ride with a measuring tape, I can't give you an objective answer.
The best I can do is subjective: late enough to significantly increase the chance that you are cognitively aware of my presence before I move into the shoulder where I am more prone to be overlooked due to inattentional blindness, but soon enough so as not to create panic or become a hazard.

It's hilarious to me that you would view your presence in the road as a "hazard." Just goes to show the size of your ego. I think when it comes to exiting the path of a moving truck, the term you're looking for is "speed bump."

It's hilarious to me that you would view your presence in the road as a "hazard." Just goes to show the size of your ego. I think when it comes to exiting the path of a moving truck, the term you're looking for is "speed bump."
Dr Pete, are you contending that only someone with a large ego (like there is something wrong with that? what kind of doctor are you?) would think that a trucker might care enough to not want to run over and kill a fellow human being who is in his way, and might choose to make a risky and hazardous maneuver in order to avoid hitting that human?

What is the matter with you?

What is the 60 to 40 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on the flats?
What is the 40 to 20 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on a gradual climb?
What is the 60 to 50 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on a downhill?

Those are the only numbers that matter for flats, gradual climbs, or downhills, because, those are the worst case requirements for what logging truck driver might have to do if he noticed a cyclist using DLP up ahead. But in most if not all cases all he would have to do is maybe take his foot of the gas for a couple of seconds.

You guys seem to be picturing coming around a blind corner at 60 mph and seeing a cyclist in the middle of the road 1000 feet up ahead who is barely moving, or stopped, and doing nothing to get out of the way. No one is suggesting riding in a manner that would cause anything close to that situation.

When I first come around that corner and see that cyclist I dont know that he is moving.
I know that I need between 400 and 800ft to stop an 80,000 pound truck, depending on the circumstances.
In this instance for me it isnt a matter of whether I have time to stop or not.
It is a mater of having about 5 seconds to determine what is happening before I reach the point of emergency actions, If you are not moving I may not be able to stop in less than 600ft, so I have very little time to take the whole situation in and make a decision.
As a truck driver I am concerned about you falling in front of me.
I am concerned because I dont know what you are going to do, I just have hope that you are in control of your bike and will maintain controll.
To be perfectly honest passing a bike in a truck just made me nervous a hell no matter what the scenario.
The entire situation is out of my hands once you are in my 60foot long blind spot.




Please note, I dont see me coming around a totally blind curve a 60mph in a truck.

Please note, I dont see me coming around a totally blind curve a 60mph in a truck.

The road depicted in the OP's photo does not look to have any 'blind spots'. It looks well engineered. Of course, that could all change around the bend....

Since I don't ride with a measuring tape, I can't give you an objective answer.
The best I can do is subjective: late enough to significantly increase the chance that you are cognitively aware of my presence before I move into the shoulder where I am more prone to be overlooked due to inattentional blindness, but soon enough so as not to create panic or become a hazard.


This is the only thing you have said that I feel a need to comment on.
Any thing less than a 1/4 mile and I am approaching my personnel panic zone.
In other words, I have have to apply the brakes hard enough to come to a complete stop now or it might be to late.
I am not certain that I can see a cyclist in my lane a 1/4 mile away well enough to tell that he doesn’t have some kind of a problem.
At this point I cannot depend on you to do the right thing, so my only option is to apply the brakes with the intent of a full stop, if I dont and you are somehow stoped in the lane...........

Now I am not saying that all truck drivers will act the way I do.
I am a cyclist and know the chances of you hitting a piece of road debris and falling in my path are high enough to warrant concern.

As an ex truck driver, and I am an ex truck driver by the way, and a cyclist, I would really like for you to understand what a truck driver has to deal with here.
There is a huge difference between being able to stop my Corvette in 60ft and needing as much as a 1/8 mile to stop a truck.
I just don’t think I can tell if you are moving or how fast you are moving from ¼ mile away.
This is not about VC, I dont have a stand one way or the other, this is about understanding that trucks need special attention and much much more time to react.:)

this is about understanding that trucks need special attention and much much more time to react.:)

And should be driven accordingly......

Dr Pete, are you contending that only someone with a large ego (like there is something wrong with that? what kind of doctor are you?) would think that a trucker might care enough to not want to run over and kill a fellow human being who is in his way, and might choose to make a risky and hazardous maneuver in order to avoid hitting that human?

What is the matter with you?

Just saying that if an inexperienced vehicular cyclist who thinks they're doing the right thing leaves the lane too late or does something else inadequate to avoid the truck, the huge hunk of metal is going to have a much harder time reacting to that cyclist than the cyclist to the truck.

Dead and right is still dead.

And should be driven accordingly......
Is this some kind of insinuation that I dont?

What is the 60 to 40 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on the flats?
What is the 40 to 20 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on a gradual climb?
What is the 60 to 50 mph stopping/slowing time/distance for a logging truck on a downhill?

Those are the only numbers that matter for flats, gradual climbs, or downhills, because, those are the worst case requirements for what logging truck driver might have to do if he noticed a cyclist using DLP up ahead. But in most if not all cases all he would have to do is maybe take his foot of the gas for a couple of seconds...

You guys seem to be picturing coming around a blind corner at 60 mph and seeing a cyclist in the middle of the road 1000 feet up ahead who is barely moving, or stopped, and doing nothing to get out of the way. No one is suggesting riding in a manner that would cause anything close to that situation.
Here is a website where the Oregon Trucking Associations shows normal stopping times:

http://www.ortrucking.org/stopping.htm

Note that this is most likely for dry pavement, sunny weather. I have followed fully-loaded log trucks coming down the North Umpqua Highway, going around turns at over 60 mph. These were not extreme turns, but were enough to block vision. On the straight and level, they will require under good conditions 525 feet to stop; that's 175 yards.

John

this is about understanding that trucks need special attention and much much more time to react.

And should be driven accordingly......
What should happen and what does happen are two different things. When trucks and cars and bicycles interact, there is a lot of misunderstandings about capabilities. Truck drivers can drive competently, and within control, and still not be able to stop within the time that would be required to prevent a collision (see the differences in stopping times at the above website; reaction times remain the same). They must drive at the rate of traffic flow, and they cannot stop within the spaces most people expect. My efforts here are to educate you as bicylists of the limitations of trucks, especially heavily-loaded long-haul trucks and log trucks, for manouvering and stopping.

John

Is this some kind of insinuation that I dont?The way you drive is fine, expected, and 100% normal in my book. The people wanting to get dead-center in your path at 1/5th your speed, on the other hand, out of the fear they won't be noticed AND then you'll additionally drift onto the shoulder and hit them... :rolleyes:

I might add that the cyclist riding up the middle of the traffic lane like that, without real reasons like obstructions, is breaking Washington state laws, and you have the right to expect them not to be doing it. In fact, call the Washington State Patrol and report them.

Thanks for delivering a reality check to a certain few people on this topic. Maybe they'll ride wiser for it.

You guys have not been in log truck territory if you think you can ride the lane safely.

Now, enter a cyclist into this equation. If the bicyclist tries to "take the lane," the cyclist risks having a log truck driver swing around a bend in the road at between 45 and 70 mph, with just a few seconds of time to react. This is not an easy environment to safely bicycle. Taking the lane in these conditions can be very hazardous to your safety, as it gives the log truck driven not much options but to either slow down (which may not be an option if fully loaded), or pass (which may not be an option if there is opposing traffic). Here are some interesting stats on log trucks:
As part of my solo cross-USA tour, I've cycled on US2 through Washington state, portions of which are narrow shoulderless winding mountain roads with logging truck traffic. A cyclist anywhere on these roads is, by definition, taking the lane. When passing, they didn't give me too much or too little room. When there was opposite direction traffic, they would slow down enough to let oncoming traffic pass before passing me. The logging truck drivers were the best drivers I've encountered anywhere.

When there was opposite direction traffic, they would slow down enough to let oncoming traffic pass before passing me.
Hmm, according to what most everyone else is writing here, it would be physically impossible for a driver to slow down a logging truck to your speed without running you over like you were a speed bump. Perhaps you imagined your entire trip? ;-)

Hmm, according to what most everyone else is writing here, it would be physically impossible for a driver to slow down a logging truck to your speed without running you over like you were a speed bump. Perhaps you imagined your entire trip? ;-)

Boy I sure hope I didnt make it sound like that.
My point was that a truck driver has to go into emergency mode sooner than one might realize.:)

But the point is, if it's safe to effectively take the lane (truck cannot pass cyclist if there is oncoming traffic) when the road is narrow, why is it any less safe to take the lane when the road happens to be wider?

I mean, I could see saying that it's rude to continue taking the lane when someone is approaching from behind and there is a shoulder in which one can easily and safely ride while being overtaken -- which is why I recommend moving aside in those circumstances -- but many seem to have implied that even if you get out of the way while the truck is still more than 10 seconds from overtaking you, it's not only rude, but unsafe to wait that long. How can it be unsafe to not move aside when you wouldn't even have that option on the types of narrow roads Brian is describing riding safely on?

But the point is, if it's safe to effectively take the lane (truck cannot pass cyclist if there is oncoming traffic) when the road is narrow, why is it any less safe to take the lane when the road happens to be wider?

I mean, I could see saying that it's rude to continue taking the lane when someone is approaching from behind and there is a shoulder in which one can easily and safely ride while being overtaken -- which is why I recommend moving aside in those circumstances -- but many seem to have implied that even if you get out of the way while the truck is still more than 10 seconds from overtaking you, it's not only rude, but unsafe to wait that long. How can it be unsafe to not move aside when you wouldn't even have that option on the types of narrow roads Brian is describing riding safely on?

I will say as long as you left me enough time to react it would be safe.
As long as you remember that we are both human and capable of mistakes.

R-Wells, I think we're on the same page.

Thanks for your efforts in clarity. It's refreshing around here...

But the point is, if it's safe to effectively take the lane (truck cannot pass cyclist if there is oncoming traffic) when the road is narrow, why is it any less safe to take the lane when the road happens to be wider?

I mean, I could see saying that it's rude to continue taking the lane when someone is approaching from behind and there is a shoulder in which one can easily and safely ride while being overtaken -- which is why I recommend moving aside in those circumstances -- but many seem to have implied that even if you get out of the way while the truck is still more than 10 seconds from overtaking you, it's not only rude, but unsafe to wait that long. How can it be unsafe to not move aside when you wouldn't even have that option on the types of narrow roads Brian is describing riding safely on?
Helmet Head,

I think we are also converging on this. For the roadway pictured, there is on reason a person could not ride in the lane safely, unless the driver took exception to the bicyclist (we've had that happen here with tragic results--a pickup truck, not a truck). I would like to suggest that it is probable that, in the post above where the truck drivers were very good to the touring bicyclist, the truck drivers knew ahead of time that the bicyclist was there. These drivers are pros, and they talk to each other all the time on their CBs. When I was going up into the woods for my consulting years ago, I would get onto the CB and tell them that I was coming up. Usually, you can see a sign (sometimes a small one) posting the CB channel that they are on or monitoring. My concern is that a cyclist who is unknown to them (perhaps the first log truck through the area) will do something erratic and place him/herself in a hazardous position by mis-reading the conditions, approach speed, decision time, etc. that the trucker needs. What I'm trying to prevent is something like this happening:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=229174

John

this is all becomming just a semantics exercise.


helmet head, you profess no experience with or riding near these trucks, likely don't ride these types of roads, and therefore your platform has little merit and is based on inexperienced speculations..

Listen to your peers, you might learn something.

as to this road, it is NOT a narrow roadway. this is a twelve foot wide, swept shoulder with relatively new asphalt. the trucks take the turns and curves of these rural, highway speed graded roadways at 60-70 MPH and more in the dips, they do need a LOT of room to stop (and not many truckers enjoy bleeding speed and hitting the jake in a full emergency stop for no good reason) hanging in the lane unecessarily on a bicycle would not just be considered rude, it would be considered UNSAFE.

even though this rural, logging oriented highway speed road is graded and shouldered exceptionally well (this type of shoulder on these hauling roads is considered a 'breakdown' or rolling shoulder, i believe...) , there may be less than ten seconds of sight time for a trucker cresting a hill or around a curve on this road.

So, the general rule on this type of road is

1) stay out of the travel lane, ride the shoulder unless there is a very compelling reason to do otherwise.


seriously. this is not an armchair exercise, this is reality based cycling and most of us that have been there say to avoid the lane unless there is an awfully compelling reason to do so.

trying to be conspicous to other traffic is not a compelling enough reason on this type of road and with this type of traffic pattern. it is unecessary and paranoid and would be exponentially more hazardous to all other users of the road as well as the bicyclist.

this is all becomming just a semantics exercise.

Pretty much true of all A&S threads...


helmet head, you profess no experience with or riding near these trucks, likely don't ride these types of roads, and therefore your platform has little merit and is based on inexperienced speculations..

As he has stated. I believe it has also been stated that his ideas are what he would likely consider doing, but it is impossible to know if it would work until you are actually in the given situation. Also, pretty much everyone on this thread is speculating unless you live in said area and have real world experience. So what is your point?


Listen to your peers, you might learn something.

Go back and read. I think he has been. Or is it the fact that HH is actually getting along with some other posters on this thread now that have you all riled up? I think finally in the last 15-20 posts this thread has gotten slightly constructive.

seriously. this is not an armchair exercise, this is reality based cycling and most of us that have been there say to avoid the lane unless there is an awfully compelling reason to do so.

Then your "case study" was a dismal failure. Your OP failed to explain properly the nature of these roads as other have. And then you posted a picture that basically shows the opposite of your description (Nice straight road, no logging trucks. No blind turns). Next time be more detailed. Especially better pictures. I am assuming you took the picture while out riding? If there are as many logging trucks as you describe it should have been easy to get a picture with at least one in them.

In my opinion, which I have stated on other posts of yours, this was simply another HH/VC/DLP (oh sorry, Powerweaving) bait post. Another attempt to get your nemesis HH to post his methods so you could say "but you have no experience with this situation so your theory is bunk". Well great. You did it. Want a cookie?


Chill out dude...


-D

hardly my intent, derath.

this was a hill steep enough i was riding slowly up it. i wasn't thinking of starting a thread while i was riding this road -

i'm usually waiting to catch the evergreen scented pull draft of any logging trucks with fresh cut fir sticks headed for the mill, not taking pictures of them.

but hey, the shoulder is where you want to be to be safe on this road, not pulling in and out of the travel lane at the sight of every approaching vehicle. don't cause the beginnings of a chain reaction by YOUR inattentiveness or sudden miscalculation or mishap.

I think there are two sides. Those who believe that you should to ride out of the shoulder until there is a compelling reason to get in it, and those who believe that you should ride in the shoulder until there is a compelling reason to leave it.

I am in the latter and will not apologize for that. It meets the requirements for safe, defensive driving because it is the way that will require the least amount of lane changing or other movement from me. I was taught that when you drive a car you should get into the lane that provides the smoothest travel for you. The shoulder will not have a lot of merging happening in it, nor will it require of me a lot of merging, so I find that to provide me the smoothest travel on a bicycle (naturally you aren't allowed to drive in the shoulder.)

Listen to your peers, you might learn something.
I can listen to LCI_Brian, or you. Sorry, but I choose Brian.

trying to be conspicous to other traffic is not a compelling enough reason on this type of road and with this type of traffic pattern.
Tell that to the families mourning the loved ones they have lost to drivers who were inattentionally blind to cyclists in the shoulder or bike lane and subsequently inadvertently drifted into them. See the "bike lane deaths" thread if you need a reminder.

it is unecessary and paranoid and would be exponentially more hazardous to all other users of the road as well as the bicyclist.

Nothing you or anyone else has written has shown why riding in the traffic lane, when safe and reasonable to do so (in the absence of same-direction traffic), to improve cognitive conspicuity to those who will be approaching from behind (including to increase sight lines at curves), as well as any potential cross-traffic, "would be exponentially more hazardous to all other users of the road as well as the bicyclist."

I think there are two sides. Those who believe that you should to ride out of the shoulder until there is a compelling reason to get in it, and those who believe that you should ride in the shoulder until there is a compelling reason to leave it.
:beer: :beer: :beer:

Three cheers for succinctly and accurately zeroing in on the underlying difference in philosophies. I've been saying this for years, but it's nice to see someone who disagrees with me agree on what we're disagreeing about.

I am in the latter and will not apologize for that.
And I respect that. You're in the vast majority.

My problem with waiting to get out of the shoulder until there is a compelling reason to get out is that there might be a compelling reason before you know it exists, and by the time you do, it will be too late. In particular, if the compelling reason is that the next driver who will be approaching from behind will be inattentionally blind to you in the shoulder AND will choose to attend to a distraction and inadvertently drift into the shoulder as a result right before he overtakes you, then you will never know what happened. Again, see the bike lane deaths thread for all too many instances of this. In fact, as far as I can tell, not achieving cognitive conspicuity with approaching same-direction drivers could very well be the main factor in rural road cyclist deaths. The trouble is that this is not a factor that anyone is looking for, much less documenting.

Also, before anyone argues (again) that if cyclists start using this method, then as soon as any of those forget to move back into the shoulder before they are overtaken they will be killed, consider all those cyclists on the narrow roads that Brian described, where moving aside is not an option. They're not getting killed, so why would these guys?

Tell that to the families mourning the loved ones they have lost to drivers who were inattentionally blind to cyclists in the shoulder or bike lane and subsequently inadvertently drifted into them. See the "bike lane deaths" thread if you need a reminder.


I don't have a problem riding left... and do it quite often depending on timing of approaching traffic.

What I do have a problem with is the reasoning... this "inattentionally blind" thing.

I have a feeling that it doesn't matter where you are on the road... including being in a car, dead center in the road. If you are in front of someone that is inattentionally blind, I don't think they will see you anyway. I feel this is demonstrated by the number of autos that are rear ended and are not in stop and go traffic... how can that be explained?

I also know personally of someone that was rear ended by a sheriff while they were driving on a lone country road (the kind of road I would tend to ride "centerish.")

Now granted the idea is to move out of the way before traffic arrives... so you should not be rear ended. But the bottom line is that expecting to be seen by drivers that are just not "there" is perhaps not the greatest reason to use this "centerish" method.

This report suggests that driver inattention is the cause for typical rear end collisions... with other motor vehicles. There is also an interesting corolation to accidents and the daylight saving time changes... for those of you that feel that certain times of year tend to be more chaotic.
.
http://ppc.uiowa.edu/driving-assessment/2003/Summaries/Downloads/Final_Papers/PDF/55_Sullivanformat.pdf

This report focuses on driver being drowsy as a cause of rear end collisions... and discusses lane drift also.

http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/RW01!.PDF

I have a feeling that it doesn't matter where you are on the road... including being in a car, dead center in the road. If you are in front of someone that is inattentionally blind, I don't think they will see you anyway. I feel this is demonstrated by the number of autos that are rear ended and are not in stop and go traffic... how can that be explained?
Inattentional blindness is not an either/or condition like regular blindness is.

Inattentional blindness is selective, and we're all susceptible to it all the time, because it is impossible to pay attention to everything all at once. Therefore, we are constantly "inattentionally blind" to whatever does not have our attention.

Yes, being in the lane up ahead does not guarantee to get an approaching driver's attention. But, I think it's pretty obvious that being there in his intended path, plus moving across his lane into the shoulder, makes it much less likely for him to be inattentionally blind to your presence by the time he is about to overtake you then if you were just riding off to the side of his lane the entire time. It's about significantly improving the probability of being noticed.

Now, if you estimate that 99% of those overtaking cyclists while they're riding in the bike lane or shoulder are cognitively aware of their presence, then you cannot appreciate what I'm saying.

However, if you estimate that only about 50% of those overtaking cyclists in shoulders or bike lanes are cognitively aware of their presence, as I do, then maybe you can begin to appreciate what I'm talking about.

What I believe is riding up ahead in the lane, and then moving into the shoulder, improves the chances of an approaching driver to be paying attention to me from about 50% if I was in the shoulder or bike lane the entire time, to about 99.9% (I estimate only 1 in 1,000 will overlook me even if I'm in their intended path). Where do I get these estimates? Well, the 50% comes from the gorilla study, where about 50% did not notice the gorilla. This estimate also seems to be supported by the behavior of motorists overtaking me when I'm in the bike lane vs. when I'm not. Sorry, that's all I've got. But that, along with all the tragic inadvertent "I didn't even see him" drift deaths, is enough to convince me it's worth doing, and I do.

If situationally blind only happened to people on the shoulder then motorcyclists wouldn't have the same trouble being seen as bicyclists.

If situationally blind only happened to people on the shoulder then motorcyclists wouldn't have the same trouble being seen as bicyclists.
Which might be relevant to point out if anyone said anything that was based on the assumption that inattentional blindness only happened to people on the shoulder.

Yes, bicyclists as well as motorcyclists are subject to situational blindness. Knowing that we can't guarantee that we'll be seen, all we can do is try to improve our chances. In other to do that, we can use lights and bright clothing. And, I contend, we can use lane position that is more likely to grab the attention of others. But, again, there are no guarantees. But, hey, that's life.

But, I think it's pretty obvious that being there in his intended path, plus moving across his lane into the shoulder, makes it much less likely for him to be inattentionally blind to your presence by the time he is about to overtake you then if you were just riding off to the side of his lane the entire time. It's about significantly improving the probability of being noticed.
It hasn't been "pretty obvious" to me. Not from driving my car, not from riding in other peoples' cars, not from daily riding. If people have a real inattention problem, it's that they frequently don't look more than one block ahead, not even in their own lane, without having their attention yanked forward by something such as a strobe.

As for your usual made-up-off-the-top-of-my-head statistics, shored up by an entirely unrelated scenario...:rolleyes: yeah, real scientific there.

I didn't claim it was scientific.

The problem is, the data is limited, and yet we all have to decide whether we should default in the shoulder or in the traffic lane on something. I work with the data, logic and reason that I have, and make the best decision that I can, then I try to explain my decision process. Hey, when there is no hard science in the decision process, don't be surprised to not find any in the explanation of the process.

I think that if someone is incapable of seeing traffic in an adjacent lane they aren't likely to be capable of seeing traffic in front of them either.

I think that if someone is incapable of seeing traffic in an adjacent lane they aren't likely to be capable of seeing traffic in front of them either.I think furthermore that many drivers tend not to look down the road very far, not even in their own lane, when they're just driving along. You can see it at work if you hang out near one of these signs blocking a traffic lane:

http://www.safetysupplyandsign.com/images/img49.gif

Some people get pretty close to one, dead ahead in their lane, before they take action. And most of them are pretty powerful.

I just got back from a trip to the Post Office in overcast daylight here. I had to answer a guy's questions about my Nova. He said it grabbed his attention from about 3 blocks back (which is about as far a line of sight as you can get there) and wanted to know more about it. Turns out he's a rider that I'd put a rear rack on his recumbent recently. :beer: He gently scolded me for being visibly dehydrated and not having a waterbottle along :D (he's a medical specialist)

So the scorecard is +1 again for high-powered strobes, even versus my neon-lime ANSI vest (not to mention my lane position). My own experience is also that a strobe will pull my focus to it from long range (e.g. amber strobes on utility trucks).

I think that if someone is incapable of seeing traffic in an adjacent lane they aren't likely to be capable of seeing traffic in front of them either.

But you don't have a fancy scientific term for that, so it doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

But you don't have a fancy scientific term for that, so it doesn't matter. :rolleyes:We should make one up! :) How about... Oooo, I got one, focal distraction!!!

:beer:

We should make one up! :) How about... Oooo, I got one, focal distraction!!!

:beer:

Not bad-- what about "motoring-induced cognitive dysregulation?"

:beer:

I think that if someone is incapable of seeing traffic in an adjacent lane they aren't likely to be capable of seeing traffic in front of them either.
Which might be relevant if anyone said anything based on the assumption that some drivers are incapable of seeing traffic in an adjacent lane.

Perhaps you intended to say the following, which is based on an assumption someone (me) has actually made:

If someone is capable of not noticing traffic in the adjacent shoulder or bike lane then they aren't likely to be capable of seeing traffic in front of them either.

Is this what you meant Diane? Of course, that does not follow, since just because one is capable of not noticing A says nothing about their lack of capability for anything, much less seeing B. So maybe you meant this:


If someone is capable of not noticing traffic in the adjacent shoulder or bike lane then they are likely to be capable of not seeing traffic in front of them either.

Sure. But this is true of everyone, so it's rather meaningless. That's why this is what I think:

Everyone is capable of not noticing traffic in the adjacent shoulder or bike lane.
Everyone is capable of not seeing traffic in front of them either.

BUT:
Everyone is much more likely to not notice traffic in the adjacent shoulder or bike lane than to not see traffic in front of them.



many drivers tend not to look down the road very far,

As far as the how far they look argument... sure, many don't look as far ahead as they should. BUT, here is when it becomes critical: a driver is about to attend to a distraction that he knows will require him to take his eyes off the road for a short period (e.g., to pick up the bag of fries he just knocked over). My hypothesis is at that point the driver takes a quick glance to confirm his intended path is clear for some reasonable distance before attending to the distraction. The inadvertent drift collision happens when during the attendance to that distraction he drifts into the shoulder with the cyclist he did not notice when he did his pre-check due to inattentional blindness. I'm assuming that if I AM in his intended path when he does his pre-check, then he is much more likely to notice me, and I am less susceptible to inattentional blindness. And, if does not notice me, he is much less likely tochoose to attend to the distraction, or at least pay more attention to what's going on because he noticed I'm out there.

Do you guys really not see this, or are you just pulling my chain?

As far as the fancy scientific terms, make 'em up if you have to... I don't. I use ones that other have coined to refer to phenomenon that has been studied and documented.

Why is it such a stretch to believe that a motorist is responsible for being aware of more than the lane immediately in front of him/her?

The idea that human beings are somehow incapable of this is preposterous. If they are, they should not be allowed behind the wheel of a 3000+ pound weapon.

Why is it such a stretch to believe that a motorist is responsible for being aware of more than the lane immediately in front of him/her?

The idea that human beings are somehow incapable of this is preposterous. If they are, they should not be allowed behind the wheel of a 3000+ pound weapon.For some reason, the classic case of spontaneous-generation theory comes to mind. Ah yes, the grain that was in the box is gone, because it spontaneously turned into a mouse overnight, and the hole in the box shows where the mouse chewed its way out afterwards.


...Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes: Anyone see what I'm trying to say here...?

Why is it such a stretch to believe that a motorist is responsible for being aware of more than the lane immediately in front of him/her?

The idea that human beings are somehow incapable of this is preposterous. If they are, they should not be allowed behind the wheel of a 3000+ pound weapon.
Are you serious? Can you read at all?

What did anyone say that would cause you to ask "Why is it such a stretch to believe that a motorist is responsible for being aware of more than the lane immediately in front of him/her?" Did anyone say a motorist is NOT responsible for being aware of more than the lane immediately in front of him/her? Hint: No, no one has said that. So why would you ask this?

By the way, Herr Doktor :rolleyes:, are you aware that human beings sometimes fail to meet their responsibilities, and that drivers are human beings?

Why would you state, "The idea that human beings are somehow incapable of this is preposterous."? Has anyone stated that human beings are somehow incapable of being aware of more than the lane immediately in front of him/her? No one has said that, so why would you ask this?

Do you understand the difference between :

being capable of overlooking something, and
being incapable of noticing something


You and Diane seem to interchange the two extremely different concepts as if they are one and the same.