Logging trucks, one bike, and a twelve foot shoulder.

[Helmet Head]

Bek (and anyone else here), if you want me to take you seriously, stop dodging the issues and please answer the following questions.


Did you agree with the following statement in the article?

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us .... Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

If you agree, and forgetting about cyclists per se for now, do you also see that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

[John C. Ratliff]

Helmet Head,

Unfortunately, I think you are exhibiting some "attentional blindness" in your insistence on a small section of this article and ignore the larger perspective it holds. Here is the entire section, from which you quote one small sentence. Reading the whole gives a different perspective than you are showing above:

Cognitive Conspicuity Factors

There is more to conspicuity that just sensory quality. "Cognitive conspicuity" is equally or more important for drawing attention. We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way. The classic example is the cocktail party phenomenon. You are at a cocktail party and having a conversation with someone. You understand the words of your partner and may or may not are also aware of the buzz of other, unintelligible conversations. We are so fast at interpreting speech sounds, that we are generally unaware that detecting the sounds and interpreting them are separate mental processes. The buzz sounds are coded for pitch and loudness, but you do not have the capacity to interpret both your partner's "sounds" as well as those of other conversations in the room. Attention limits us to one conversation at time.

You can scan the room and switch your attention to someone else and can then understand that conversation but your partner's words become a meaningless buzz. The stream of consciousness is unitary, so you can consciously follow only one conversation at a time.

Now, suppose someone behind you says your name. This automatically attracts your attention to the other conversation because your name is meaningful. This happens visually as well. When I'm reading a newspaper, I frequently find my attention automatically drawn to the combination letters "pitt" even if they are not in the area that I am examining. The reason is that I'm from Pittsburgh, so the "pitt" has a special meaningfulness to me. (My emphasis added)
The problem here is that what is perceived as "relevant" isn't necessarily what is in front of the person, but what interests him/her at the moment. If a person is describing something on a cell phone, it may not be easy to attract attention outside that sphere of attention. If it were, then there would be fewer accidents from these distractions. Face it, any time there is an accident, there was something there that the person should have been paying attention to. The article gives several examples of something of relavance to the person which was ignored and caused an accident. That last one about the ambulance driver who turned into a pickup truck is a great, though tragic, example.

What you, and perhaps others, fail to realize is that our attention can only be focused on one thing at a time. There is no "multi-tasking"; that is a myth. What people who think they are "multi-tasking are doing is going from one subject to the next quickly, and then coming back to it. They are essentially "scanning." But when attention becomes fixed, that is where it is, and even potentially lift-threatening events in front of them or to the side will be ignored.

In rescue work, we have something called the "panic-exhaustion syndrome." This was taught to diving instructors in the 1970s. A person in this situation has a narrowed focus, and does not see what is actually happening around him/her, but focuses only on one thing (in this case, trying to "climb" out of the water, getting exhausted from this and finally collapsing into the water and drowning). This is extreme fixation, where the person is not able to respond even to potentially life-saving events. I know a Pararescueman what swam out of an Albatros flying boat to pick up a pilot who had bailed out into the ocean off North Vietnam, under shell fire, and had the pilot still fight him. He cold cocked the guy with his diving knife, swam him to the HU-16B, and they successfully rescued him. Airman Neal got the Silver Star for that rescue. I asked him how he know which end of the knife to hit him with (the blunt handle or the knife blade), and he told me that, at that point, he didn't care.

Drivers can become pretty fixated too. I investigated a log truck fatality where the driver on a winding logging road was on his CB radio, and missed a turn in the road. He was going downhill, and talking to his girl friend, in a fully-loaded log truck when all of the sudden the radio went silent. Nobody could figure out why he had missed the turn. The cab was crushed by the logs behind him when he hit the ground some 100 feet below. Finally, I got a call from the company's owner to come out, and he showed me what he had found when they pulled the cab off the steering wheel. The CB radio's mike cord was wrapped several times around the steering wheel. We figured out what had happened. He had been talking to his girl friend when he came to a turn. The CB was located over the top of the steering wheel, and when he went around a sharp curve, he dropped the mike to make the turn. The mike went down through the steering wheel, tangled around the wheel as he turned it to make the turn. He tried to untangle it immediately after the turn, and while his attention was diverted to the cord, he ran off the road on the next turn.

So it really does not matter much for these people whether someone is trying to get their attention--their attention is diverted. Sometimes, it works. But when it does not, the results are not pleasing. You asked,
If you agree, and forgetting about cyclists per se for now, do you also see that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?
To the diverted individual, the perspective of "in driving pathway" or "outside" does not matter, as he/she will not see either. A good driver will ignore certain problems to take in the larger perspective, and they may see a person in the lane earlier, but probably not, as a good driver should be seeing both equally. The diverted individual, with "attentional blindness" at that moment, will see neither. But for the cyclist, position to the side will give more room for survival.

John

[Helmet Head]

John, please don't dodge my questions. Please answer them.

The problem here is that what is perceived as "relevant" isn't necessarily what is in front of the person, but what interests him/her at the moment.

Exactly. Now, I picture anyone, including myself, who is tempted to take his eyes off the road to attend to some distraction. In order to decide whether I can afford to do that right now, what am I going to do? Most likely I'm going to glance up ahead and see if the road is clear. What's relevant to that decision in particular is whether it's safe to take my eyes off the road for the time I estimate it will take to attend to the distraction. Therefore, what is up ahead in the driver's intended path IS what interests him (in the context of deciding whether to take his eyes off the road), and what is not in his intended path interests him much less.

Also, what I am already aware of being up ahead in my path without even looking up is an important factor in determining how much time I allow myself to pay attention to the distraction. If my perception is that the road up ahead is clear, then I am likely to take more time to attend to a distraction then if I have taken notice of an obstacle, including a cyclist, up ahead in my intended path.

The article gives several examples of something of relavance to the person which was ignored and caused an accident.
Yes, and another example (my own, not from the article) is ignoring the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane or shoulder because the driver has no intention to drive into the shoulder, so that cyclist is perceived, tragically (when the motorist moments later inadvertently drifts into the shoulder), as being irrelevant. What matters more than actual relevance is perceived relevance. Accidents happen when drivers overlook the relevance of something, true. So, is a driver more likely to overlook the relevance of a cyclist up ahead in the shoulder, or is he more likely to overlook the relevance of a cyclist up ahead in his lane in his intended path? (again, PLEASE do not dodge this question; please answer it)


What you, and perhaps others, fail to realize is that our attention can only be focused on one thing at a time.
Huh? That's the basis for my entire hypothesis! I've said this many times in many different ways, and you contend that I fail to realize it? When you contend I fail to realize something that forms the primary foundation of what I'm saying, it really makes it appear like you're not paying attention to the argument that I'm making.

Hopefully, I have your attention now. Please read the rest of this carefully.

My theory is based on the assumption that a driver can only focus on one thing at a time, and, in order to drive, a driver must and obviously does (or there would be many more crashes) at least periodically and frequently focus on what is up ahead in his intended path. That's WHY I want to be there - so that when the next moment (if that's all he gives) or more of focus that he devotes to his intended path happens, I'll be there!

But when attention becomes fixed, that is where it is, and even potentially lift-threatening events in front of them or to the side will be ignored.
Yes, during the drift itself the driver's focus is elsewhere and it is impossible for him to notice the cyclist regardless of where he is. We agree on that. But back up. I'm talking about the time prior to the moment when the driver chooses to focus his attention on whatever it is that distracts him.

Say he knocks the fries over, and that's what grabs his attention and prevents him from noticing anything else. What matters here is whether the moment prior to the fries falling (or the phone ringing, or the commercial coming on the radio, or whatever), was he aware of the presence of the cyclist up ahead? And, what determines whether he is cognitively aware of that cyclist or not? And what if anything can the cyclist do to increase the likelihood that the driver will be aware of him should such a critical moment arise?

Inattentional blindness is not loss of memory. That is, if I have the driver's attention BEFORE his attention goes to the fries falling or whatever, he's not going to forget about the relevant cyclist up ahead in his lane, but he very well might not be cognizant of the perceived-to-be-irrelevant cyclist up ahead in the shoulder. This is why relevance matters so much, and why I want you to answer my questions. Please, no dodging.

[Bekologist]

hed, all your artifice and made up constructs are interfering with the ACTUAL advice given in this thread.

YOU need to get some reality into your artifice.

[patc]

I have recently noticed a situation on the highways that I think is interesting and akin to what you are saying. Cell phone using motorists tend to fixate and tailgate. Watch carefully the next motorist you see who is following someone way too close... I'll bet you'll see a cell phone in play somewhere. I saw a motorist last night that was right on the tail of another car... and when that lead car changed lanes (probably to shake off the tailgater) the "tailer" started to follow.. made it about 1/4 of the way into the lane before they broke off. Shortly after, the tailgater suddenly changed behaviour and then went into another lane, and kept a respectful distance. They probably ended the call.

Gene and John, just want to add something in here. We have all experienced the "de-focusing" of vision, or "staring off into the distance" when thinking about something. This is actually common when talking on the phone. I caught part of a documentary a while back discussing this phenomenon, and explaining that part of our thought process is linked to the visual cortex... in other words, we do some types of thinking with the same part of the brain we see with. The researchers in this documentary suggested that the reason cell phone use is particularly distracting when driving is not only because of your split attention, but because some parts of the conversation may disengage your brain from processing vision and instead be used to "visualize" your dinner plans, the item the person on the phone is talking about, etc. I don't recall if this was stated as known fact or research in progress, but the repercussions to activities such as driving are obvious.

[sbhikes]

I've noticed that fixation by cell phone drivers, too.

I've also seen people follow me into the bike lane. Why would they do that unless they simply were not paying attention.

By driving a motorcycle and riding a bicycle I have learned that there are situations where you need to cause a distraction. That is why I will wave people away from me if they are following me on my bike, or I will honk my horn if it's not clear a driver has actually seen me on my motorcycle.

I suppose you can say that riding down the center of the lane (The POWERWEAVE) is a form of causing a distraction. However I would prefer to ride in the shoulder and wait until there is a real need to cause a distraction rather than cause distractions as a matter of course. I don't ride my scooter honking like a maniac just in case and I don't cause distractions on my bike just in case.

[Brian Ratliff]

I often use lateral movement to attract attention. It is the movement itself, not simply being in a static position on a road (anywhere on the road), which is useful. Ever been on the freeway passing cars on the outside and had that "oh sh!t" moment right before it registers that the car you are about to pass is drifting towards you in an unsignaled lane change maneuver? I like to signal before the maneuver, so that the "oh sh!t" moment doesn't occur, but the idea is the same, that relative movement focuses attention.

[Brian Ratliff]

Gene and John, just want to add something in here. We have all experienced the "de-focusing" of vision, or "staring off into the distance" when thinking about something. This is actually common when talking on the phone. I caught part of a documentary a while back discussing this phenomenon, and explaining that part of our thought process is linked to the visual cortex... in other words, we do some types of thinking with the same part of the brain we see with. The researchers in this documentary suggested that the reason cell phone use is particularly distracting when driving is not only because of your split attention, but because some parts of the conversation may disengage your brain from processing vision and instead be used to "visualize" your dinner plans, the item the person on the phone is talking about, etc. I don't recall if this was stated as known fact or research in progress, but the repercussions to activities such as driving are obvious.

I've caught myself at times doing this. One time, it was really weird: I was in stop and go traffic and having a brief conversation on the phone (just after I got it, I take precautions now), but during that conversation, I would see that the car in front was stopping, and it would register that I should start slowing down, for some reason, I couldn't react to what I was seeing and registering until the situation was becoming critical. It was as if someone were actually holding my foot back to keep me from braking properly. Like I said, that scared me, so I take precautions now.

[derath]

hed, all your artifice and made up constructs are interfering with the ACTUAL advice given in this thread.

YOU need to get some reality into your artifice.

ROFL. Bek, you crack me up. Why don't you just go sit down and watch. The dialog between HH and John Ratliff is some of the ONLY constructive and useful parts of this thread. If for no other reason they are illustrating how 2 people can debate and dialog in a constructive and respectful manner.

I also find it funny that almost every time a thread stops going your way (and I have pointed this out in other threads of yours) you always fall back on calling names, especially to HH (using misspelled versions of his user ID) and your large vocabulary. Your pompous pontificating is quite infantile really.


I often use lateral movement to attract attention. It is the movement itself, not simply being in a static position on a road (anywhere on the road), which is useful.

Very true. In fact I had mentioned earlier in this thread (largely unnoticed) that in the case where there was traffic I would stay safely in the shoulder, but would tend to stay towards the left side of the shoulder, moving right as vehicles came up behind to overtake me. Even within the shoulder this positioning I feel helps in 2 ways.

1. It helps to get attention in ways you mentioned. Our eyes are very attuned to motion (how often does that darting squirrel catch your eye on the side of the road).

But also

2. It helps to communicate. By moving right, even within the shoulder, I am communicating to the driver "Yes I see you back there and I am moving right in anticipation of you passing me" I have found this helps. I even get drivers wave as they pass sometimes. I think it helps to make them more comfortable knowing I am aware that they are passing me.

Oh hey, I just think I latched onto something. Dynamic Lane Positioning from within the shoulder DLPWS. Some of the benefits of DLP to make the VC types happy, while staying out of the travel lanes to make the shoulder camp happy.

C'mon Bek, even you will have to admit that is a pretty decent compromise. :D

-D

[R-Wells]

I've noticed that fixation by cell phone drivers, too.

But I would like to point out that it is not just cell phones.

I have this problem while trying to read the articles in Playboy.
Got so bad I had to give up driving so I could concentrate.:rolleyes:

[genec]

I've noticed that fixation by cell phone drivers, too.

But I would like to point out that it is not just cell phones.

I have this problem while trying to read the articles in Playboy.
Got so bad I had to give up driving so I could concentrate.:rolleyes:


da dat da dah crash! (rimshot) :D

[Brian Ratliff]

Very true. In fact I had mentioned earlier in this thread (largely unnoticed) that in the case where there was traffic I would stay safely in the shoulder, but would tend to stay towards the left side of the shoulder, moving right as vehicles came up behind to overtake me. Even within the shoulder this positioning I feel helps in 2 ways.

1. It helps to get attention in ways you mentioned. Our eyes are very attuned to motion (how often does that darting squirrel catch your eye on the side of the road).

But also

2. It helps to communicate. By moving right, even within the shoulder, I am communicating to the driver "Yes I see you back there and I am moving right in anticipation of you passing me" I have found this helps. I even get drivers wave as they pass sometimes. I think it helps to make them more comfortable knowing I am aware that they are passing me.

Oh hey, I just think I latched onto something. Dynamic Lane Positioning from within the shoulder DLPWS. Some of the benefits of DLP to make the VC types happy, while staying out of the travel lanes to make the shoulder camp happy.

C'mon Bek, even you will have to admit that is a pretty decent compromise. :D

-D

You describe fairly well how I ride most of the time when a bike lane is provided. I pretty much ride left biased in the [bike] lane (hanging a shoulder out), but I have freedom to move right to allow more passing space or left across the line (or on the line) to keep my space and discourage squeezing.

I use the bike lane to my advantage in a different way as well. By shifting from one side of the line to the other, I can effectively signify to an overtaking driver a "taking the lane" maneuver with only 6 to 12 inches of lateral movement, all because of the presence of a reference strip which is the bike lane line.

[derath]

I've noticed that fixation by cell phone drivers, too.

But I would like to point out that it is not just cell phones.

I have this problem while trying to read the articles in Playboy.
Got so bad I had to give up driving so I could concentrate.:rolleyes:


Not to degrade this thread even further, but personally I think satellite radio is almost worse than cellphones. I have been in the car with a coworker who was so fixated on that little LCD, trying to scroll through 150 channels of digital sound, while I was saying "umm dude BRAKE. RED LIGHT"

-D

[Helmet Head]

Bek, John,. Gene, Brian R, R-Wells and others... I am done with this thread except to continue with anyone who give my questions honest thoughtfulness, and answers them accordingly.

For the 3rd time:

Did you agree with the following statement from the article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html)?

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.


We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us .... Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

If you agree, and forgetting about cyclists, inattentional blindness, being distracted, etc., for now, do you agree that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

[R-Wells]

Bek, John,. Gene, Brian R, R-Wells and others... I am done with this thread except to continue with anyone who give my questions honest thoughtfulness, and answers them accordingly.

For the 3rd time:

Did you agree with the following statement from the article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html)?

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.


We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us .... Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

If you agree, and forgetting about cyclists, inattentional blindness, being distracted, etc., for now, do you agree that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

I am not involved in this debate.
But I will answer your question, and then make an observation of my own.

I tend to notice things that are relevant to me.

Now my obeservation.
Sh** I forgot what I was gonna say.
oh yeah, lets talk about girls for a little while.:beer:

[genec]

Bek, John,. Gene, Brian R, R-Wells and others... I am done with this thread except to continue with anyone who give my questions honest thoughtfulness, and answers them accordingly.

For the 3rd time:

Did you agree with the following statement from the article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html)?

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.


We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us .... Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

If you agree, and forgetting about cyclists, inattentional blindness, being distracted, etc., for now, do you agree that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?


I agree that we are likely to notice things that are relevant to us. (and THAT is the key issue)

I do not agree that a cyclist on the road, in the path of motorist, may be relevant to that motorist at time X. And that is the problem.

While anything in the path of a driving motorist SHOULD be relevant to that motorist, it all depends on where the motorist's attention is... and it could be anywhere... DVD player, map, cell phone, GPS, radio, CD player, french fries... girl friend in lap, sleeping, good book... etc.

Your whole premise for using DLP is based on a motorist actually shifting their attention, and then determining whether the road is clear. If a motorist's mind is already distracted, you can park a cement truck on the roadway, and that motorist will plow right into it.

There are other reasons to use DLP... being seen from behind is not the biggest reason. Go to the DLLP thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=230167) if you wish to continue.

[Helmet Head]

I agree that we are likely to notice things that are relevant to us. (and THAT is the key issue)
Good.

I do not agree that a cyclist on the road, in the path of motorist, may be relevant to that motorist at time X.
If you do not agree that he may be relevent, you are implying you are sure he won't be relevant. Is that your intent?
If not, please reword.


While anything in the path of a driving motorist SHOULD be relevant to that motorist, it all depends on where the motorist's attention is... and it could be anywhere... DVD player, map, cell phone, GPS, radio, CD player, french fries... girl friend in lap, sleeping, good book... etc.
Nothing in my theory depends on what SHOULD be relevant.

Your whole premise for using DLP is based on a motorist actually shifting their attention, and then determining whether the road is clear. If a motorist's mind is already distracted, you can park a cement truck on the roadway, and that motorist will plow right into it.
No it's not. Look at what I wrote as recently as, well a few posts back:


Say he knocks the fries over, and that's what grabs his attention and prevents him from noticing anything else. What matters here is whether the moment prior to the fries falling (or the phone ringing, or the commercial coming on the radio, or whatever), was he aware of the presence of the cyclist up ahead? And, what determines whether he is cognitively aware of that cyclist or not? And what if anything can the cyclist do to increase the likelihood that the driver will be aware of him should such a critical moment arise?


You didn't really answer the last question. It's a long question, very detailed. I gave it a lot of thought when I came up with it. I would appreciate the same in return:

Forgetting about cyclists, inattentional blindness, being distracted, etc., for now, do you agree that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

[genec]

Good.


If you do not agree that he may be relevent, you are implying you are sure he won't be relevant. Is that your intent?
If not, please reword.



Jeeze I hate these quizzes.

No, I am implying only that a distracted motorist may look and not even see a pink elephant. "Look" and "see" are two different things. While an object in the path of any motorist SHOULD be relevant; relevancy (is that a word) depends on the motorist... not the path or the object.



Nothing in my theory depends on what SHOULD be relevant.



You assume that a motorist looks before attending to a task... I think they may look, but do not see, as their mind is already on the task that they are checking for anyway. This is not to say that this is the case all the time, but simply that a distracted motorist may not have their attention redirected by even things that are very relevant.




You didn't really answer the last question. It's a long question, very detailed. I gave it a lot of thought when I came up with it. I would appreciate the same in return:

Forgetting about cyclists, inattentional blindness, being distracted, etc., for now, do you agree that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

Yes. Should be. If a motorist is going to hit something it should set off warning bells in that motorists head. But this is a logic quiz and does not deal with reality... reality for motorists is not logic but emotion, the thrill of driving, the loud stereo, the ringing cell phone etc etc. And hell who knows perhaps a general dislike for cyclists... thus a cyclist in the roadway may be enough to trigger a blind rage.

But to answer your irrevelant logic question. Yes, should be.

BTW at this point you are proving nothing in the argument... it is just a game of logic and semantics... has nothing to do with cycling at all. (in fact you made this specifically NOT about cycling by saying: "Forgetting about cyclists...") But if that is what you want to play... ball's in your court.

[mechBgon]

Mech, you're confusing suburban and urban environments with the "rural" roads which this thread is about and about which I'm referring when I say "miles and miles and years and years of having nothing consequential happen with anything in the shoulder or bike lane"That's ridiculous. People who drive on rural highways know that stuff on the shoulder or the median can be trouble or cause for caution. Deer. Elk. Unrestrained dogs. Stopped cars. Cyclists. Farm equipment. Vehicles pulling out of driveways or side roads. Vehicles waiting to complete a crossing or a turn from the median. Vehicles passing, oncoming or in the same direction. Shoulder maintenance (see pic below). Snowplows, sanders and de-icers regrouping. Police and sheriff's cars. Should I add another ten or twenty possibilities, or is that enough?

It's beyond ludicrous to say that they just drive for years without anything consequential happening from anything outside their lane. Reality... come visit sometime. Oh, and bring your raingear and lights, we sometimes need them here.


http://www.mechbgon.com/visibility/200m_cropped.jpg

Where do I focus when driving on the freeway? Up the road about 30 seconds. And if there's something on the shoulder, it takes top priority over anything that's actually in my lane, because I'm closing on it at 60mph instead of maybe ±3mph and it could do something unexpected, like make an abrupt turn into my path (cars, deer, cyclists, whatever) or throw a door open, or someone walks around the car dangerously close to me. The vehicle in my lane going 57-63mph, by contrast, can't do anything more unexpected than slam on its brakes really hard or swerve out of the lane abruptly, much easier to allow for with a decent following distance.


*knocks down the house of cards again, and puts this one through the crosscut shredder this time*

[John C. Ratliff]

Helmet Head,

First, since I first wrote this, I've been in three meetings and a two-hour class. You are not my top priority. But because you are adept at influencing a bunch of people on this board, I continue to read and reply.

You have failed to read carefully my detailed response. You have taken a single sentence out of context of the article, and represented it as the heart of your theory. Many people drive "on automatic." For those people, who are in their own little world, this "attentional blindness" will not easily be penetrated by inputs from any direction. Who are they? Well, those people doing their hair in the car, caring of a child, eating something, etc. If they are paying some attention to their driving, they are not in this "attentional blindness" described in the article. So my answer, for this particular phenomenon, is that it really does not matter if the cyclist is directly in front or to the side.

Now, for someone driving reliably, it does matter, but not in the particular situation you are describing. The person who spills his fries won't be able to take any evasive manouver at all when trying to pick up his fries. You will be toast in this situation. Heck, we've had fighter pilots become fixated and fly into mountains when trying to deliver bombs into a tunnel in North Vietnam.

Have I answered you clearly enough now?

John

[Helmet Head]

Have I answered you clearly enough now?
No. I asked two yes or no questions. I don't have a clear yes or no for either one from you. I'll even take a "I refuse to answer on grounds that it's a loaded question" (if you think it is, and explain why). So for the 4th time:

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us.... Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

If you agree, and forgetting about cyclists per se for now, do you also see that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

You have failed to read carefully my detailed response.
You are mistaken. I read it very carefully. It did not answer my question.

You have taken a single sentence out of context of the article, and represented it as the heart of your theory.
It is not the heart of my theory. However, it is a critical point. One of the many premises of my theory is that the answer to both of the above questions is yes, so I'm trying to establish consensus on these two points. So if the answer is yes, please says so, so we can move on, and deal with some other points. If the answer is no, then let's back up and find out what part of the question(s) prevents you from being able to answer in the affirmative. Either way, whether you answer yes or no (or even "neither - it's a loaded question"), we would be making progress. But as long as you dodge the questions, we're going no where.

Thanks. So, what are your answers?

[Bekologist]

head, enough with the theories. the sophistic antics.

listen to the practical, reality based advice from real time truckers, long distance bicyclists and traffic accident investigators. it's not that complicated of a scenario.

you don't ride theory, dude.

[Helmet Head]

Are any of you capable of breaking down a problem and focusing on the component pieces independently?

[Bekologist]

uh, i'm the one that posted the case study. seems pretty clear.

i think you even gave it a vote of support early on.

its really not that complicated of a scenario.

[Helmet Head]

No, it's not that complicated. But neither is my yes or no question which you are apparently unable to answer.

[Bekologist]

i'd rather not get bogged down in your little semantics shenangins, mr head.

i posted a case study for others to post and opine about; you have abundantly given yours, and now have hijacked the thread to argue needlessly about obscurities and dilute the many voices of experience held in this thread.

"Logging trucks are big and fast,
and smell like Christmas when they pass."

smell that fragrance of the fresh cut pine, helmet head? sometimes, ya just got to be there, i guess. I can't get my armchair to move fast enough on all these hills in the Northwest so I ride my bicycle instead.

[mechBgon]

Are any of you capable of breaking down a problem and focusing on the component pieces independently?Are you capable of throwing away your ludicrous assertion that people don't expect anything from outside their vehicle's physical path to enter it, on rural roads or anywhere else?

[John C. Ratliff]

Helmet Head,

You want a yes or no answer to a varied set of circumstances. Sometimes, there is no simple, yes or no answer. I can say that under normal circumstances, yes, you are more likely to notice something that is relavant to you. I can also say that there will be various deviations to this, and that anything can keep a person from noticing something that is relavant to him or her. Didn't the author of that article even state that he missed seeing his own wife in a crowd because he was looking for her coat, not her face? It would seem that his wife would be relavant, no matter what she was wearing, but he missed her. Why? Was it because she wasn't relavant to him? I don't think so. So get into the real world, where yes and no answers don't always come easy.

As for a bicyclist being right in front of a car and being noticed, it really does depend upon the circumstances. Drivers may, and may not, see them. I have a capped front tooth because a dumb fireman driver was making a turn on the flight line at DaNang, RVN, looking for cars, and hit me while I was walking near a building. You'd think that he should have seen me, as I was right in the path, and bounced my knee off the front of the fender before my elbow hit the top of the fender, and my tooth was pulverized by that fender. So if you think I'm going to say that being in front of a vehicle guarantees you that you will be seen, or even makes more likely, you are mistaken. I liked my tooth, and now it's gone ;) The dentist asked me in the DaNang dispensery whether the truck that hit me was red. I told him it was a fire truck, and he laughed because there were still flecks of red paint imbedded in my tooth. All that, and I didn't even get a Purple Heart.

John

[Helmet Head]

John (and anyone else who is still resisting answering my two simple yes/no questions for some reason), you can read this, and agree to (finally) answer the two questions, or you can continue trying to explain why you're dodging answering the questions. Your time; your choice.

You want a yes or no answer to a varied set of circumstances.
Well, I want a yes or no answer to a "more likely" question with a varied set of circumstances. Like, is it more likely to randomly choose a number card than a face card from a full standard deck of cards? What's wrong with that? Sure you might get a number card, or you might get a face card, but the answer is still clearly yes since the odds of getting a number card are higher than the odds of picking a face card. So yeah, I want a yes or no answer to a likelihood question with a varied set of circumstances.

Sometimes, there is no simple, yes or no answer.
Sometimes there isn't. But this time, there is. If I asked you if we are more likely to get heads than tails when we toss a fair coin, then there would be no simple yes or no answer (since the two likelihoods are exactly the same). But I'm asking you what's more likely:


We notice something that is relevant to us in some way.
We notice something that is not relevant to us in any way.


Is one much more likely than the other? If so, which one? This is the exact same fundamental question presented slightly differently. It's not that complicated! You don't need to qualify your answer!

I can say that under normal circumstances, yes, you are more likely to notice something that is relavant to you.
Oh come on already. Can you please answer the exact question I asked, without changing it?
Do you agree with the following statement, unmodified, yes or no?

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.

I can also say that there will be various deviations to this, and that anything can keep a person from noticing something that is relavant to him or her.
That you very much, but, with all due respect, of course and so what? That observation might be relevant, as an explanation for why your answer is no, if I was asking you if you agreed with, for example, the following statement:

We ALWAYS notice ALL things which are relevant to us in some way.

The answer to that question would be NO, because, while we are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way, under some circumstances, we don't notice all things which are relevant to us in some way.

But I'm NOT asking you if you agree with that statement. You do understand the difference in meaning between "ALWAYS notice ALL things" and "more likely to notice things", don't you? I'm asking if you agree with this statement:

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.

Not in just "normal circumstances". Under any circumstances, in all circumstances, are we MORE LIKELY to notice things which are relevant to us in some way, or not? If not, under what circumstances might we be no more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way?

This is not a trick question. It's really straightforward, and I can't understand the resistance to answer it.

Didn't the author of that article even state that he missed seeing his own wife in a crowd because he was looking for her coat, not her face? It would seem that his wife would be relavant, no matter what she was wearing, but he missed her. Why? Was it because she wasn't relavant to him?
She most certainly was not relevant to him... that was the whole point. He was not looking for her, he was looking for her coat, so when he saw her, she was irrelevant. He was looking for her coat! That was the whole point. But, that is all moot, even if there are examples of people not noticing things that are relevant, that does not mean it is not true that we are more likely to notice things that are relevant to us in some way. Again, you seem to be thinking "always notice all things" rather than "more likely to notice things".

As for a bicyclist being right in front of a car and being noticed, it really does depend upon the circumstances.
Yes, whether a bicyclist right in front of a car is noticed, really does depend upon the circumstances. No one is saying anything that disputes that. However, regardless of the fact that it depends upon the circumstances, it is still either true or false that a bicyclist, like anything else, is more likely to be noticed if he is relevant to us in some way.

I have a capped front tooth because a dumb fireman driver was making a turn on the flight line at DaNang, RVN, looking for cars, and hit me while I was walking near a building.
Yes, if a driver expects to see only cars, if he is only looking for cars, than he is more likely to overlook a pedestrian or cyclist. Of course. Classic inattentional blindness. To a driver looking for cars, a pedestrian or cyclist is irrelevant to his search for cars, and more likely to be overlooked (just like the guy looking for his wife's coat is more likely to notice the coat than his wife). So what? Do you think anything I'm arguing does not recognize this fact? If you do, then either I have not explained it clearly, or you're not paying attention, or both. This is frustrating.

Sorry if I missed it, but I think the second question was ignored completely:

Forgetting about cyclists per se for now, do you also see that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

[Helmet Head]

Are you capable of throwing away your ludicrous assertion that people don't expect anything from outside their vehicle's physical path to enter it, on rural roads or anywhere else?
Huh? Nothing I've written is based on the assertion "that people don't expect anything from outside their vehicle's physical path to enter it, on rural roads or anywhere else". And I don't mean just literally. Nothing I've said is conceptually based on anything close to that assertion.

[Bekologist]

i thought you were DONE posting bullshizzle, helemt!

give it a rest, buddy. you've said your piece here. you are NOT the end all, be all of bicycling method.

all of your theory does not override the conventional wisdom and experience. your lane positioning hokum holds no water, there is NO COMPELLING REASON to ride in the travel lane of this road.

head, there is abundant evidence and opinion from experienced bicyclists and truck drivers and accident investigators in this thread alone to suggest that riding in the lane IS unsafe for various and sundry reasons.

powerweave on a narrow road does NOT legitimize weaving on the road described in the case study. it recklessy and needlessly endangers all on the road who observe a cyclist, in the lane, up ahead, by cojntributing to roadway complexities and potentially contributing to a near miss or an accident.

this is not complicated, helemt hed. you've already told us where you'd ride.

"Highway speed, rural, two lane road with 12 foot shoulders. high amounts of logging truck and commercial large vehicle traffic. curves, hilly, rolling terrain. sun is low in the sky. The shoulder is swept as clean as the main travel lane.

A bicyclist is riding in one direction on the road. they are travelling 8 MPH on the uphills and 20-35 MPH on the downhills.

Truck traffic is passing frequently in both directions."

maybe i should rephrase the question- Where does the SMART bicyclist ride to maximise safety on this road?

"logging trucks are big and fast,
and smell like Christmas when they pass."

[DrPete]

Are you capable of throwing away your ludicrous assertion that people don't expect anything from outside their vehicle's physical path to enter it, on rural roads or anywhere else?

I'll save you a lot of reading: No.

[Bekologist]

maybe you should try some visibility equipment, some visquip, if you are that concerned about absolute cognition by the drivers, helemt hed.

wear a neon ANSI class 2 or 3 safety vest, helmet head, and run a Superflash, and you can ride safely in the shoulder on this road, assured that the drivers are going to take notice. they'll be able to see you two or three hills distant a half mile away if the lines of sight allow it. even the distracted ones. the only ones that won't see you are the ones that fell asleep.

regardless of what kind of visquip you run, the smart bicyclist will be riding in the shoulder anyways.

[DrPete]

give it a rest, buddy. you've said your piece here. you are NOT the end all, be all of bicycling method.

all of your theory does not override the conventional wisdom and experience. your lane positioning hokum holds no water, there is NO COMPELLING REASON to ride in the travel lane of this road.


If only that were all it took...

But you're absolutely right. Assuming that inattentional blindness doesn't somehow cease to be when you're on a bike, a cyclist riding in the travel lane with a truck approaching from behind is far more likely to provoke some kind of evasive maneuver from the truck (hard braking, swerving, what have you) that endangers everyone on the road. Maybe the cyclist saw something up ahead that got his attention. Maybe his rear derailleur is acting up. Who knows? But cyclists are not immune to inattentional blindness by anything I was able to find, so then you have a VERY slow-moving vehicle in the traffic lane with an inattentive operator, and that tends to not end well.

But you say cyclists need to pay attention to what's around them in order to prevent inattentional blindness? Hmmm... it's almost like motorists could do that too.

I'll take the lane when I need to, and I'll do it safely and conspicuously. But the idea that I have to be in the lane all the time is garbage. I might be reducing my chances of getting hit as a result of inattentional blindness, but I'd be increasing my chances of getting hit for some other reason.

[John C. Ratliff]

I can say that under normal circumstances, yes, you are more likely to notice something that is relavant to you...
I don't get it Helmet Head. Doesn't that sound like an answer. But after your discourse, I change it to "No." Obviously, many words are not relavant to you, but you use them.
Forgetting about cyclists per se for now, do you also see that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?
Again, for someone in "inattentional blindness" the answer is "no." The brain rejects all other input. That's why these accidents happen. There is a reason Mr. Green calls it "blindness."

John

[tomcryar]

head, enough with the theories. the sophistic antics.

listen to the practical, reality based advice from real time truckers, long distance bicyclists and traffic accident investigators. it's not that complicated of a scenario.

you don't ride theory, dude.


Yes, I think it's in real danger of being run into the ground.

[sbhikes]

I think HH believes that his riding method gives him all the control over uncontrollable potential situations. He doesn't trust others to see him out there so he tries to create a scenario to guarantee he's seen. He puts all his faith in himself. (Makes sense because he does come off as rather controlling.)

I don't have that much faith in myself. I might make a mistake as much as anybody behind me might. I'd rather reduce the consequences of mistakes by not increasing their potential. Being in the potential path of a logging truck or a distracted motorists increases the potential for some kind of mistake if I am distracted at the same time. Not so when I am out of their path.

[Helmet Head]

If only that were all it took...

But you're absolutely right. Assuming that inattentional blindness doesn't somehow cease to be when you're on a bike, a cyclist riding in the travel lane with a truck approaching from behind is far more likely to provoke some kind of evasive maneuver from the truck (hard braking, swerving, what have you) that endangers everyone on the road. Maybe the cyclist saw something up ahead that got his attention. Maybe his rear derailleur is acting up. Who knows? But cyclists are not immune to inattentional blindness by anything I was able to find, so then you have a VERY slow-moving vehicle in the traffic lane with an inattentive operator, and that tends to not end well.
Okay, I've heard about 5 versions of this supposed explanation, and each time I ask the same thing, and nobody answers: if the above is true, then how is it possible for a cyclist to ride safely on logging roads that are too narrow to share, where often the truck driver has no choice but to slow down the cyclist's speed (or run him down) before overtaking him, such as LCI_Brian described earlier in this thread?

You guys are imagining scenarious that are simply fantastic. But you're so blind to seeing the sense in anything I say, that you can't even answer a simple yes/no question if it comes from me.

But you say cyclists need to pay attention to what's around them in order to prevent inattentional blindness? Hmmm... it's almost like motorists could do that too.
Everybody should, but nobody should put himself in a situation where avoiding a crash depends on it. In this case of a narrow road, or a cyclist using DLLP on a wider road, BOTH the cyclist and the motorist have to be subject severe and extremely unlikely inattentional blindness for a collision to occur. In the case of the cyclist using SLLP (just riding in the shoulder), the cyclist's state of attention is irrelevant (since he's just following his course in the shoulder independent of what overtaking drivers are doing), while the overtaking motorist is probably (about a 50/50 chance) subject to a normal level of inattentional blindness to not notice the cyclist in the shoulder, AND drift. See the bike lane deaths thread for how often that happens.


I agree that the idea that you have to be in the lane all the time is garbage. Do you think anyone is suggesting that?

[quote]I might be reducing my chances of getting hit as a result of inattentional blindness, but I'd be increasing my chances of getting hit for some other reason.
Hey! This is progress! Thank you for noting that "might be reducing my chances of getting hit as a result of inattentional blindness". Now our disagreement is about whether the reduction in chance of getting hit due to i.a. is greater or less than the increase in chance of getting hit for some other reason.

How do you estimate each of the two probabilities?

[Helmet Head]

I don't get it Helmet Head. Doesn't that sound like an answer. But after your discourse, I change it to "No." Obviously, many words are not relavant to you, but you use them.
John, the statement was stated and intended to be in absolute terms in the article. The article did NOT state:

Under normal circumstances, we are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.

The article stated:

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.

Without any qualifications, do you agree with the statement as made in the article or not?



Forgetting about cyclists per se for now, do you also see that, in general, a potential obstacle up ahead in one's intended path in the lane is more relevant, and much more likely to be perceived as relevant, to a driver than is the same item outside of the driver's intended path, in the shoulder? Why or why not?

Again, for someone in "inattentional blindness" the answer is "no." The brain rejects all other input. That's why these accidents happen. There is a reason Mr. Green calls it "blindness."

You say "for someone in 'inattentional blindness'" as if it's possibly for someone to not be in "inattentional blindness", yet you're the one who was just berating me for not realizing that we can all pay attention to only on thing at a time. You don't make any sense to me.

[DrPete]

Okay, I've heard about 5 versions of this supposed explanation, and each time I ask the same thing, and nobody answers: if the above is true, then how is it possible for a cyclist to ride safely on logging roads that are too narrow to share, where often the truck driver has no choice but to slow down the cyclist's speed (or run him down) before overtaking him, such as LCI_Brian described earlier in this thread?

Just because it's possible and can sometimes happen without incident doesn't make it less dangerous than riding on a wide shoulder. FWIW, the only time I've made physical contact with a car while riding (brushed my arm with the rearview mirror) was on a road with no shoulder.

The scenario I cited is no more fantastic than anything you've cited for a motorist. Is inattentional blindness now only applicable to motorists? That's not what I've read anywhere...

[DrPete]

Hey! This is progress! Thank you for noting that "might be reducing my chances of getting hit as a result of inattentional blindness". Now our disagreement is about whether the reduction in chance of getting hit due to i.a. is greater or less than the increase in chance of getting hit for some other reason.

How do you estimate each of the two probabilities?

I've been saying it all along, you just chose to ignore it until I used your favorite buzzword.

As far as estimating the probability of getting hit, all I have to go on are causes of bicycle vs. vehicle accidents, and the intuitive knowledge that all of the vehicles moving faster than me are out there in the traffic lane, with the exception of rare (yes, they're still rare) cases where a vehicle veers into the shoulder. So if there's ever an option to get out of the traffic lane or to stay as far right as possible from moving traffic, I'll take it.

[mechBgon]

Huh? Nothing I've written is based on the assertion "that people don't expect anything from outside their vehicle's physical path to enter it, on rural roads or anywhere else". And I don't mean just literally. Nothing I've said is conceptually based on anything close to that assertion.To feed you some crow here...

Mech, you're confusing suburban and urban environments with the "rural" roads which this thread is about and about which I'm referring when I say "miles and miles and years and years of having nothing consequential happen with anything in the shoulder or bike lane"

So I guess no one ever passes, changes lanes, crosses the road, or enters or exits it. State Patrol cars never sit on the shoulder to run radar traps. And road kill must just fall from the sky. Figure it out, silly, daily driving doesn't condition motorists to expect nothing consequential happening with anything that's not in their own physical path (whether that's the shoulder, bike lane, median, intersections or other traffic lanes). But that's how you try to prop up the argument that inattention blindness even applies in the first place.

I find reality a very useful tool in cutting through your fantasies. And coming back to reality here, if a cyclist wants to be conspicuious, so the motorist spots him before the motorist ________ (spills his fries, etc) and takes his attention off the road and etc etc, then a small, affordable tailstrobe like a SuperFlash and hi-vis colors are the way to go. They'll grab the attention of the motorist who ordinarily wouldn't look that far up the road (in their lane or otherwise). And they'll be useful at all hours of the day, under all weather conditions.

If the net result is that they see the cyclist on the shoulder or the bikes-only lane, know the cyclist is there, and don't have to do anything special, then that's fine. That's what multi-lane roads are all about. If it's a NOL, then they have more advance warning so they can set up a safe pass or lane-change, or else slow down until they can pass.

I see you've now been reduced to merely trying to force your favorite card on anyone as even a theoretical possibility. Why don't you spend more time on your work (I wonder what I.T. thinks of your Web-proxy record) and your family, instead of this futile pursuit? Take your kid to the zoo to see the cheetahs :D

[genec]

But you say cyclists need to pay attention to what's around them in order to prevent inattentional blindness?Hmmm... it's almost like motorists could do that too.



Bingo!

Give the man a cookie.

Everything HH expects cyclists to do, motorists can also do. HH expects cyclists to keep their head on a swivel and be situationally aware... Motorists can and should do this too.

HH expects cyclists to be prepared for the unexpeced... Again should we not expect the same from every person driving a several thousand pound vehicle?

HH expects cyclists to use a steely eyed gaze to control traffic... Hey what do you think the guy with the big SUV and loud horn ARE doing.

But bottom line... all these logic quizzes and semantic tests don't prove a thing. HH asks if we can break a problem down into little bits and examine it... well sadly it ain't math folks... there are so many variables involved there ARE NO SIMPLE ANSWERS.

Sorry HH, but you are barking up the wrong tree. You have long lost your audiance, and we that remain, are simply here to play chess.

[mechBgon]

Sorry HH, but you are barking up the wrong tree. You have long lost your audiance, and we that remain, are simply here to play chess.Well said, and we that remain are also getting more and more efficient at shredding his cards with practice, I think.

Meanwhile my cycling-visibility site hits a top-5 ranking at Google for "cycling visibility" searches, and #1 at Microsoft's Live search engine... possibly doing someone some actual good in the real world. Here's hoping.

[sbhikes]

Here's what I don't get: if you are to the left of the white line, every motorist has you directly in their path and you have to watch your mirror and react to each and every one. If you are to the right of the white line you have to watch your mirror and react only to the extremely rare one that has you directly in their path. Why is the first one better again? I just don't get it.

[sbhikes]

And the other thing I don't get is how is it that on a wide road with a huge shoulder, the shoulder is somehow considered to be a big giant danger zone, but a narrow road with no shoulder and thus very little room for error is somehow safe enough to share with logging trucks?

[Brian Ratliff]

Yawn....

It is hard to take this seriously when I know the main protagonist has no expertise outside a Wiki article and, compared to some here, has very little cycling experience. Yea, he [Helmet Head] brags about his 5 mile commute on "difficult" roads and a single intersection which "nobody" but himself uses a vehicular left turn (as if he deserves a gold star or a medal or something). He is a fair weather cyclist who has very little experience riding in inclement weather (he's admitted to leaving rain, of all things, out of his calculations since it only rains on him 4 or 5 times a year - apparently only when he gets caught out) or in darkness and who hasn't even had enough experience to have suffered a fall from his bicycle. He apparently totes a kid around here and there in a trailer, probably that same 5 mile stretch, and he rides with a club on weekends sometimes. I dunno. I tend to rely on the experiences of some here who are carless and on their bikes every day.

The conversation here is that he is just some guy, a noob, who likes to kill time at work "shouting" sophistic questions as retoric to pigionhole people into giving the responses he, for some reason, believes he is expert enough to deserve. He is the worse type of amateur around: the one who has no experience, yet believes that Wikitheory (which is not even the kind of theory you get in school) is a good enough substitute.

BTW, if you want to see his noobishness, look no further than his reponse to the UT study on bike lanes verses WOLs. He takes an 85 page report (which he read no further than the cover page) and dismisses it en masse out of hand because the researchers were "obviously" biased because they "came to the wrong conclusion."

I'm getting the impression that all some people like to do here is hear themselves talk (or type). Someone posts something serious, like a real study which can answer some of our questions in a verifiable way, or at least give us a basis to talk about the solutions providing us real data with all the statistical and methodological trappings, and our noob ignores it - dismissing it out of hand because it comes to the wrong conclusion; the right conclusion being the one conjured up by him out of hot air and Wikitheory. But I guess it is better to keep problems in the relm of the theoretical, where hot air can pretend to know the answers, than to acknowledge real data which hot air cannot affect.

[Brian Ratliff]

And the other thing I don't get is how is it that on a wide road with a huge shoulder, the shoulder is somehow considered to be a big giant danger zone, but a narrow road with no shoulder and thus very little room for error is somehow safe enough to share with logging trucks?

I don't think HH has even seen a logging road. I doubt he has even riden on a rural highway alone, without his group of weekend roadies. I am really starting to doubt his experience with traffic cycling. I mean, come on, people make up alter egos on the internet all the time. He cites from only three sources: Forester, the English dude, and Wikitheory (half or more of which he wrote himself), so he is not even well read.

And anyone who feels the need to cite himself as an expert... 's probably compensating.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I don't think HH has even seen a logging road. I doubt he has even riden on a rural highway alone, without his group of weekend roadies. I am really starting to doubt his experience with traffic cycling. I mean, come on, people make up alter egos on the internet all the time. He cites from only three sources: Forester, the English dude, and Wikitheory (half or more of which he wrote himself), so he is not even well read.

And anyone who feels the need to cite himself as an expert... 's probably compensating.
You are just now coming to this realization? After jousting with his sophistry for so long? I am shocked.;)

[Brian Ratliff]

You are just now coming to this realization? After jousting with his sophistry for so long? I am shocked.;)

Oh, you misunderstand. I alternate between this and chess. ;) But really, some people do actually come here for advice (myself included). It is hard for me to resist setting a blatent sophist straight. When I swing back to chess (BTW, if you are into chess, www.chessworld.net is a great place to play correspondance style. Let me know, I'll send you an invite to a game), I'll put our little friend back on "ignore."