If your theory is not scientific, then in my eyes, it has no validity.

Fine. But I'm not asking you about my theory. I'm asking you about whether you agree with a statement in an article that is completely indpendent of my theory. This is what baffles me so.

If your theory is not scientific, then in my eyes, it has no validity.

John
I'm sorry, but I missed the scientific theory that shows that riding mindlessly in the shoulder is safer than using DLLP on such roads.

Look, none of us have the luxury of scientific theory to tell us what the right thing is on these issues. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any of these discussions.

Nonetheless, we have to make decisions about where and how to ride. But we have no scientific theories that provide definitive answers. What do we do?

Well, we're doing it. And in the middle of doing it, to claim someone's "theory" has no validity because it's not scientific is missing the whole point. The relevant science that's out there is inconclusive. We have to wing as best as we can, including tolerating the lack of science to help us out.

Science is great. But I'm not waiting to ride my bike in traffic until all the science is in. Are you? So how do we decide how to do it? By insulting each other for basing our decisions on non-scientific theories? Come on! No wonder we go round and round in circles here.

All we can do is use the best data and experience that we have available for our premises and assumptions, and see what conclusions we can reach with logic and reason. This is why it's so frustrating to me that when I point to a paper that concluses, from scientific studies, that the following is true:

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

You and others won't even concede that. So we can't even being to establish premises on which we all agree. So we're stuck on the ground floor in terms of working together to form a unified theory, if you will.

NONE of your half baked fallacies and theoretical blindness constructs make this road any safer to ride in the travel lane. According to the body of EXPERIENCE embodied in this thread, ride on the shoulder for maximum safety.

NONE of your half baked fallacies and theoretical blindness constructs make this road any safer to ride in the travel lane. According to the body of EXPERIENCE embodied in this thread, ride on the shoulder for maximum safety.
Give it up. This thread is taken over completely by the dancing angels; counting each other.

The part about noticing the reaction of drivers approaching from behind didn't work for you during the short period that you tried it out. I don't see how you jump from that to concluding that the whole thing is a sham.Because I've been riding and using a helmet mirror since they came out in the '80s. It's not as if I'm some newbie. When I look in my mirror, there's no HUD overlay indicating that the vehicle is closing at 31mph and its dV/dT is -3.2mph/s. Come back with a real rebuttal and a clear explaination of how, precisely, I would do this stuff (or a 12-year-old kid, either), or concede the point.

Do you suggest a mirror setup similar to ILTB's then? It's about as close to normal car side view mirror as one could want (basically the same thing as a motorcycle mirror from what I can tell). No one says you absolutely need to use a helmet/eyeglass mirror.I insisted that we order in a couple of these: http://www.jbimporters.com/nondealer/product-closeup.phtml?id=9136 They have a flat glass mirror for true depth perception and a strong clamp. But the field of view is too small to be anywhere near as good as a helmet mirror, plus there's the vibration issue. I did put one on for a customer just yesterday, at any rate.

You are assuming that they see the cyclist in the shoulder/bike lane at all and that they continue to monitor the cyclist from the time they see them (which in some cases, might have been a half mile away)until the time they have completed the pass. Do you really think you are that important to the motorist that they will give you that much attention?Yes, that's realistic to expect. I'd find it unrealistic to expect them to be overtaking an unknown something with a very intense red strobe, getting brighter as they get closer, and not keep track of it. And the fact stands: you're visible from that far away, and the lane is not. So lane position is null. If you want a real-world scenario, my trips down 57th with my SuperFlash and my ANSI Class III vest were inspiring some motorists to pass me with 30 feet of clearance, they were clear into the center-turn lane. And they were on approach to me for probably 3/4 mile at that point as I rode along in the bike lane on the other side of the magical white line.


You don't think citing any cases of cyclists being killed by left/right hooks or inadvertant drift are valid reasons? That would be my argument. The whole discourteous thing is something that you've made up in your head as well. If it's discourteous to legally use the traffic lane, then biking on any roadway where there is nothing but the traffic lane must be extremely discourteous. I think riding DLLP-style is the epitomy of predictability in terms of normal traffic flow. No, it's not consistent with typical cyclist behavior but neither is stopping for red lights and stop signs.Post something that makes sense. How would I, driving in my car, be able to predict that you're going to suddenly pull into my lane, ride there, then pull out of it when I'm a certain distance away? Would it make any sense to the viewer? If I saw you, I'd be preparing a contingency plan from a long way back, only to find that HAHA SIKE! it turns out to be wasted effort because you were just posturing. Discourteous. If someone aims a gun at you, pulls the trigger, and HAHA SIKE! there was no ammo in it, is it "no harm, no foul?"

If HH went through every possible situation when describing his theory, there wouldn't be enough time in the day to read these threads. His theory assume that the cyclist is visible. If you have any doubts about your visibility, you should verify it before assuming with confidence that you are visible.It takes little effort to type up a blurb to the effect of "Always use a bright-colored outer layer of clothing and a daytime-visible tailstrobe such as a ______ (pick one), because the first phase of conspicuity is to be visible, and you can greatly accelerate the process by doing this. In fact, with good visibility equipment, DLP is normally not necessary in the first place." For someone who claims to be concerned for others' safety, why do we really we hear nothing about this? Don't tell me it's because he can't be bothered to type it, I'm not buying that ;)

My lane position means nothing to them at a half mile away in the dark. 20-30 seconds later at a quarter mile, it means a lot more and by that time, it should be clearly obvious whether or not I'm in their way.My actual video testing from inside a car at night didn't support your claim. I had to get within a pretty critical distance before it was obvious. A pity I don't still have that video clip.

In a blizzard or heavy downpour, it's about all you can do sometimes. You're the one who keeps bringing up "reality" (which to you apparently is situations that occur 1% of the time while riding a bike) so I'm discussing those occurences. In a really heavy rain, you lose peripheral vision of the road because your wipers don't clear the entire windshield. Same with snow. I know I don't spend much if any time glancing off into the shoulder just to see what's happening there. I'm evaluating the road ahead of me. Often times, side/rear view mirrors become useless due to rain and snow.So when road conditions and visibility are bad, you stop actively seeking for pedestrians coming up the sidewalk to cross in the crosswalk, cars sliding helplessly into your path from side streets on the ice...? And you just focus on the road straight ahead of you instead? Brilliant! And all this time I've been stupidly looking extra-hard through the rain-splattered windshield for pedestrians and little kids on bikes, while driving slower. And watching the intersections carefully to avoid those sliding cars. And probably 50 other stupid things like that. What a fool I am.

My bright, daylight conspicuity solution is my lane position. It's been verified by friends, family, coworkers, and the small but vocal group of motorists who like to "talk" with me as they pass that I stick out like a sore thumb riding in the traffic lanes. As a rule though, I don't go out riding in all black no matter the time of day.Right, but what do you do when you can't use lane position? Such as when the traffic flow is too dense to intrude? Do you just say "oh well" and give up? How about trying a hi-vis setup such as a neon-lime outer layer and a SuperFlash, to give you a secondary all-conditions, all-hours conspicuity strategy that works when you can't use DLLP?


I never said I'm devoting a lot of time to checking my mirror. Once I became accustomed to using one, I barely notice myself even looking at it. I just instinctively do it every few seconds.I find it reduces my overall safety to try to watch the mirror so muchso that I could say "ahh, the car has done X, they've seen me." It takes time that I could be devoting to watching for other stuff, such as jaywalkers.

If I'm out in the lane and can see a line of traffic approaching, I make my decision whether or not to pull over into the shoulder based on the condition of the shoulder, how much longer it continues at least in my field of view, and how many vehicles are looking to pass. If the condition of the shoulder is bad or if it does not continue long enough for me to ride in while the line of traffic passes, then I stay put. If I make a mistake and move over into a sub-optimal shoulder and need to exit it before the lane is clear, then at least I already have the attention of the motorists in the lane (and they've possibly slowed down a bit as well) and I can more easily merge back into the lane than if they have never really accounted for me to begin with. If I was over in the shoulder the whole time, I do not have the luxury of being able to decide whether or not to let the approaching traffic pass. I find the default centered position invaluable for this reason.All well and good, if you actually need to take the lane then go for it. If you get your Nova, then there shouldn't be any excuses about them not having advance warning that they need to change lanes, day or night. Well, or not the lead car in the pack, anyway.

To help you understand my perspective on all this, a lot of the motorists around here are impatient and don't handle it well when they're obstructed by cyclists. On a recent group ride, some of our riders had stuff thrown at them, and on another, we had punks harrassing the group from a K-car (instant karma backlash, they then tried to whip around a corner fast and ended up side-on into a fire hydrant :D). Other people in this thread and other threads mention what would happen (or has happened) to cyclists getting too uppity (or assertive, if you like). I've had a run-in with a guy with a handgun for simply riding on a 4-lane arterial and not getting onto the sidewalk when he honked (OMG he had to *gasp* change to the other lane!) ¿Comprende?

We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.
And I intend to make myself the relevant thing. ;) Strobes and hi-vis equipment have a way of doing that. The guy asking me about my daytime-visible blinkie at the Post Office said it "grabbed" his attention. From blocks away, in fact. Grabbing motorists' attention, even when it was elsewhere, is just the effect I want, so it looks like my solution is working as desired.

He also said his first impression was "police," and what do drivers do when they encounter police? They mind their driving, don't they? Is that a good thing? Well, you won't get it by means of your lane position, my friends ;)

The guy who overtook me on the Hangman Loop remarked several times that my new SuperFlash was all he could see of me and my riding buddy for quite a while as he came up on our rear, too. This isn't my paint-peeling eye-scalding Nova megablinkie, it's a weentsy $20 off-the-shelf item, but it's still enough to grab someone's eye from a range that he couldn't discern two cyclists riding side-by-side in daylight. Interesting, huh?

Why don't you just sit back and let your peers, such as donnamb learn something, much to your chagrin.

Please don't use my quote to perpetuate the bickering. You're breaking up the informative posts. Thank you.

I'm sorry, but I missed the scientific theory that shows that riding mindlessly in the shoulder is safer than using DLLP on such roads.

Look, none of us have the luxury of scientific theory to tell us what the right thing is on these issues. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any of these discussions...

Science is great. But I'm not waiting to ride my bike in traffic until all the science is in. Are you? So how do we decide how to do it? By insulting each other for basing our decisions on non-scientific theories? Come on! No wonder we go round and round in circles here.

All we can do is use the best data and experience that we have available for our premises and assumptions, and see what conclusions we can reach with logic and reason. This is why it's so frustrating to me that when I point to a paper that concluses, from scientific studies, that the following is true:

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

You and others won't even concede that. So we can't even being to establish premises on which we all agree. So we're stuck on the ground floor in terms of working together to form a unified theory, if you will.
I won't "concede" this because this is not what Mr. Green said. Basically, he said in his paper that you quote that three factors lead to "inattentional blindness." These three factors are:

--Low Conspicuity
--Divided Attention
--High Expectation or Lower Arousal

He said it is this quote:

Conclusion
Inattentional blindness accidents are usual caused by a combination of factors: low conspicuity, divided attention and high expectation or lower arousal. There is doubtless a tradeoff in the role of these factors. In any specific situation, an accident could be due to any or all.

Inattentional blindness is a natural consequence of our adaptive mental wiring. We are able to consciously perceive a small percentage of the available information that flows into our senses and are blind to the rest. The rules used by the filter, meaningfulness, conspicuity and expectation, are adaptive and usually work very well. Given the number of decisions made and actions performed by a large population of people, however, mistakes are bound to occur. Fortunately, they are generally benign. Sometimes, however, they lead to tragedy.

It is difficult to reduce errors due to inattentional blindness. One reason is that people are unaware of the blindness. Training mainly affects conscious, voluntary behavior, so it helps little. You can tell a driver to be sure to check the oncoming lane before turning, but the advice will do little good if the driver is looking for a specific address, is in a hurry and in an unfamiliar part of town. There was a case where a paramedic became involved in a fatal accident because he was confused about directions and failed to see a pickup truck coming toward him down the opposite lane. He had just come off of a training course on driving the ambulance.

You have pulled one sentence out of this paper, and built your case around it. That sentence is located in this quote, about:

1. Conspicuity
When we are just casually looking around, sometimes an object will jump out of the background. The term "conspicuity" refers to this ability to capture attention. Since getting people to notice information can literally be "a matter of life and death," many studies that have examined the factors that underlie conspicuity.

Sensory Conspicuity Factors

There are two general types of factors which determine conspicuity. One is sensory conspicuity, the physical properties of the object. The most important sensory factor is contrast. We see objects, not because of their absolute brightness, but by their contrast with the background. When there is higher contrast, objects are more conspicuous. For example, black cars are involved in many more accidents, presumably because they harder to notice at night. We also are more likely to notice objects which are large and which move or flicker. That's why school busses, police cars, ambulances, railroad crossings and so on all use flickering light. Recent research has shown , however, factors such as bright colors, movement and flicker do not ensure conspicuity. For example, Britain experienced a rash of accidents where drivers struck police cars parked on road shoulders. In order to reduce the accidents, the entire police car rears were painted the "highly conspicuous" chevron pattern as shown in the figure. Although the cars might now seem conspicuous, the rate of these accidents actually increased.

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. (emphasis added by JCR)

But this is only one of the three parts to his theory of accidents caused by inattentional blindness. The other two, divided attention and high expectation or lower arousal, you ignore. There is relavance in the quote you have, we do tend to pay more attention to things that interest us (notice I turned this around a bit, purposely). But that is not the whole of even Mr. Green's theory.

The other thing is that this theory is not a whole theory in itself either. It explains inattentional blindness, but there are many other causes of accidents. The theory I like better is by Dr. David DeJoy, and is known as the Human Factors Model of Workplace Accident Causation*

In it Dr. DeJoy shows that human error leads to Injury/Loss Potential, which leads to the Injury/Loss. Human error is influenced by three things, person-machine communication, the environment, and decision-making. Each of these has several factors:

Person-Machine Communication
Words/symbols
Displays
Controls

Environment
Anthroponmetry/biomechanics
Micro-Task Environment
Macro-Task Environment
Ambient Physical Environment

Decision-Making
Predisposing Factors
Enabling Factors
Reinforcing Factors

Control strategies look at each of these factors, and figure out a control for them. These include:
Engineering controls
Self-Protection
Organizational/Management Controls

So what you did was take a relatively obscure sentence out of a single paper to build a theory which is simplistic, and that's why I did not agree. I actually agree with Mr. Green's paper, but it does not go far enough for me to be an all-encompassing theory to prevent bicycle accidents.

What you tried to do with the probabilities, and building that into your theory, was the "pseudoscience" that I objected to. That was simply, and by your own admission, a WAG. But if someone read that, and decided that you had "proven" your theory with those assumptions, than that conclusion would be dangerous, as it reflects only a small amount of one person's experience.

While I could go on quite a while on how Dr. DeJoy's model could apply to bicycling, it is getting late, and this post is already long enough. Look it over, and if any of you want, you can probably got a copy of that article from ASSE (see below for the adderss). I have used it in my professional safety work for a number of years, and written papers about its applicability to two industries.**

*DeJoy, David M., May 1990, "Toward a comprehensive human factors model of workplace accident causation, Professional Safety Magazine, Vol. 35, No. 5, (ASSE, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018, USA, pages 11-15. (http://www.asse.org/)

**Ratliff, John C., "A New Approach to Logging Safety," Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada, August 27-30, 1991, Human Factors Association of Canada/Association canadienne d'ergonomie, 6519B Mississauga Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 1A6, pages 155-160.

Please don't use my quote to perpetuate the bickering. You're breaking up the informative posts. Thank you.


Oops umm, I think I already did.

Darn there I did it again, breaking up the informative posts.

At this point does it really matter?

-D

"logging trucks are big and fast,
and smell like Christmas when they pass.
wave 'em by, then catch the draft.
in their way for NO reason is totally daft.

be ready to bail if the going gets dicey,
big shoulders ease worries about collisions quite nicely.
you'll get a pine scented assist with any good luck,
but ride a little too close, and you're totally f**ked."

"logging trucks are big and fast,
and smell like Christmas when they pass.
wave 'em by, then catch the draft.
in their way for NO reason is totally daft.

be ready to bail if the going gets dicey,
a big shoulder eases worries about collisions quite nicely.
you'll get a pine scented assist with any luck,
but ride too close and you're totally f**ked."

Apparently it doesn't matter anymore.

Someone Help, Bek has broken into rhyme.:D

Actually Bek, that is a pretty good poem. It should be a good way to end that thread.

Oh wait I did it AGAIN. Quick post another stanza, and I won't reply. Then THAT can be the end.

-D

So what you did was take a relatively obscure sentence out of a single paper to build a theory which is simplistic, and that's why I did not agree. I actually agree with Mr. Green's paper, but it does not go far enough for me to be an all-encompassing theory to prevent bicycle accidents.

What you tried to do with the probabilities, and building that into your theory, was the "pseudoscience" that I objected to. That was simply, and by your own admission, a WAG. But if someone read that, and decided that you had "proven" your theory with those assumptions, than that conclusion would be dangerous, as it reflects only a small amount of one person's experience.

While I could go on quite a while on how Dr. DeJoy's model could apply to bicycling, it is getting late, and this post is already long enough. Look it over, and if any of you want, you can probably got a copy of that article from ASSE (see below for the adderss). I have used it in my professional safety work for a number of years, and written papers about its applicability to two industries.**

*DeJoy, David M., May 1990, "Toward a comprehensive human factors model of workplace accident causation, Professional Safety Magazine, Vol. 35, No. 5, (ASSE, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018, USA, pages 11-15. (http://www.asse.org/)

**Ratliff, John C., "A New Approach to Logging Safety," Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada, August 27-30, 1991, Human Factors Association of Canada/Association canadienne d'ergonomie, 6519B Mississauga Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 1A6, pages 155-160.

I so appreciate your posts. They are lucid, logical, responsible and informative. A very well reasoned argument and well supported. Thank you for your efforts to elevate the level of discourse in this forum.

Apparently it doesn't matter anymore.

Someone Help, Bek has broken into rhyme.:D

Actually Bek, that is a pretty good poem. It should be a good way to end that thread.

Oh wait I did it AGAIN. Quick post another stanza, and I won't reply. Then THAT can be the end.

-D

oops!

and so 'twas I that broke the lyric thread,

eternal posting is what we all should dread,

to post and post and never end,

may well put us all around the bend,

and round the corner, "oh, just my luck!"

a huge careening logging truck,

the only choice that I can see,

is to bail before we all shall be,

hood ornaments on a great big Mack,

and now it's time to hit the sack.

I so appreciate your posts. They are lucid, logical, responsible and informative. A very well reasoned argument and well supported. .
That they are. But really, is it worth that much lucid, logical, responsible and informative verbiage to argue or convince a reasonably intelligent person why a turd stinks? IMO, it is putting a lot of effort into disproving the obviously lame angel dancing theories of HH and his debating partners.

i find it interesting and yet pathetic this thread has gone on for 13 pages in vain attempts by helemt hed to validate his wacky theoretical methods for riding this road, instead of listening to sound, actual advice and the voices of experience that have chimed in on this post.

where does a bicyclist position themselves for maximimum safety on a road as described in the original post? It is soo apparant, no about of obfuscation by helmet hed can change the reality that the shoulder is a safer, more prudent place to ride on this curvy, highway speed logging road with the 12 foot shoulders.

That they are. But really, is it worth that much lucid, logical, responsible and informative verbiage to argue or convince a reasonably intelligent person why a turd stinks? IMO, it is putting a lot of effort into disproving the obviously lame angel dancing theories of HH and his debating partners.Hey, it keeps me outta the bars... ;)

This is why it's so frustrating to me that when I point to a paper that concluses, from scientific studies, that the following is true:

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

You and others won't even concede that. So we can't even being to establish premises on which we all agree. So we're stuck on the ground floor in terms of working together to form a unified theory, if you will.

I won't "concede" this because this is not what Mr. Green said.

John, what do you mean it's not what he said? It's a verbatim quote. It's not ALL of what he said, but it's a key point, upon which some of the rest of what he said is built. If you don't agree with this point, then you cannot agree with his paper.

You have pulled one sentence out of this paper, and built your case around it.
I have built nothing around this one sentence. You are putting the cart before the horse. I would like to use this one point on which to explain my methodology, but there is no point in doing that if you won't even concede the truth of this underlying premise.

I am asking you if you agree or disagree with the statement, independent of Green's theory, independent of my theory, independent of any theory. Why can you not just focus on the meaning of the statement on it's own, and let us know if you agree with it or not?

In the dozen or so posts I have written to you about this statement, I have asked only about the statement. I have not even mentioned my theory. It's you who seems to keep answering a different question.


I ask: Do you agree with this statement?
You seem to answer: Do you agree with the theory that I will build partially on the assumption that this statement is true.


I'm asking A, not B. Please answer A: Do you agree that the following statement, unqualified in anyway, as stated in Green's paper, is true?

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

If not, why not? (in your answer, please do not bring up Green's theory or my theory which has nothing to do with whether or not this independent statement, unqualified, is true).

No, see above.

John

Of interest in this discussion:

relevant

One entry found for relevant.
Main Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

Main Entry: 1in·ter·est
Pronunciation: 'in-t(&-)r&st; 'in-t&-"rest, -"trest; 'in-t&rst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, probably alteration of earlier interesse, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin, to be between, make a difference, concern, from inter- + esse to be -- more at IS
1 a (1) : right, title, or legal share in something (2) : participation in advantage and responsibility b : BUSINESS, COMPANY
2 a : a charge for borrowed money generally a percentage of the amount borrowed b : the profit in goods or money that is made on invested capital c : an excess above what is due or expected <returned the insults with interest>
3 : ADVANTAGE, BENEFIT; also : SELF-INTEREST
4 : SPECIAL INTEREST
5 a : a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : CONCERN b : something that arouses such attention c : a quality in a thing arousing interest

If Mr. Green had said that we pay more attention to something that interests us, I would agree (using the definition in 5a and 5b of the Merrian-Webster OnLine dictionary above). But he used the word "relevant," and so I disagree. Something can have "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" and still be ignored, easily, by someone interested in something else. For instance, I should be studying right now, as I have a test next Wednesday. But this discussion interests me, so I (to some degree) ignore the relevant and go with my interests.

John

That bright purple monospace font certainly jumps off the page at me a lot more than all the black, sans-serif words all in the same "lane" of the page right in front of me.

Almost subtle........:)

Please answer A: Do you agree that the following statement, unqualified in anyway, as stated in Green's paper, is true?

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

If not, why not? (in your answer, please do not bring up Green's theory or my theory which has nothing to do with whether or not this independent statement, unqualified, is true).

No, see above.
Above? What you wrote above, while it some sense in the abstract, independent of the question I keep asking you, it makes no sense as an explanation as to why your answer to my question is no. Every statement you made above is either irrelevant as to why you disagree with the statement in question, false, or illogical. Allow me to explain...

this is not what Mr. Green said.
False. Those are Green's exact words!

Basically, he said in his paper that you quote that three factors lead to "inattentional blindness." These three factors are: ...
Irrelevant. I know what he said in the rest of the paper. What does the rest of the paper have to do with whether or not you agree with the statement in question?

But this is only one of the three parts to his theory of accidents caused by inattentional blindness. The other two, divided attention and high expectation or lower arousal, you ignore.
False. What do you mean I ignore them? I read the whole paper. Many parts are useful and interesting. But indepedent of all that, Green says, unconditionally, "We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way." With respect to evaluating whether or not this particular statement is true, yes, I ignore the other parts of his theory that are irrelevant to this question, and I don't understand why you think they are relevant.

There is relavance in the quote you have, we do tend to pay more attention to things that interest us (notice I turned this around a bit, purposely). But that is not the whole of even Mr. Green's theory.
Irrelevant.. I am puzzled as to why you feel it's necessary to state that this one statement is not the whole of Green's theory. Of course it isn't. It's one part of his theory, a crucial building block, if you will. But what does that have to do with the question of whether or not this statement is true?

Then you go on to present DeJoy's theory. Irrelevant. What does DeJoy's theory have to do with whether or not the statement in question is true?

What you tried to do with the probabilities, and building that into your theory, was the "pseudoscience" that I objected to.
Irrelevant. What does what I did with probability and building a "pseudoscience" have to do with whether or not the statement in question is true, or explaining why you disagree that it is true?

I actually agree with Mr. Green's paper, ...
Illogical. Agreeing with a paper implies agreement with the fundamental premises and findings of that paper. One of the fundamental points in Green's paper is the statement in question. Yet you refuse to say you agree with it. That makes no sense.

... but it does not go far enough for me to be an all-encompassing theory to prevent bicycle accidents.
Irrelevant. What does whether or not Green's theory goes far enough "to be an all-encompassing theory to prevent bicycle accidents." have to do with whether or not the statement in question is true?

That was simply, and by your own admission, a WAG.
Irrelevant. That was a separate discussion, and had nothing to do with whether or not the statement in question is true.

But if someone read that, and decided that you had "proven" your theory with those assumptions, than that conclusion would be dangerous, as it reflects only a small amount of one person's experience.
If you want to disprove my theory because it is a pseudoscience or because it has some assumptions in it that you can't agree with, fine. Then identify those premises, and explain why you think they are false. But to say you disagree with any premise in my theory, simply because it's a premise in my theory, even though it's also a premise in a paper with which you agree, is bordering on being disingenuous.

That they are. But really, is it worth that much lucid, logical, responsible and informative verbiage to argue or convince a reasonably intelligent person why a turd stinks? IMO, it is putting a lot of effort into disproving the obviously lame angel dancing theories of HH and his debating partners.

given that HH actually feels the need for a rebuttal to John's clarity proves your point. I fear you may be right.

Folks, I want to be able to present a theory and get some honest analysis and productive feedback for it.

That includes breaking down the theory to fundamental premises and explaining why or why not those premises are believed to be true on their own. John seems to be incapable of doing this. He appears to be unable to evaluate a premise in my theory independent of my theory. He also can't seem to separate it from the paper it which it was originally asserted. I'm sorry, but that's just not helpful.

Folks, I want to be able to present a theory and get some honest analysis and productive feedback for it.

That includes breaking down the theory to fundamental premises and explaining why or why not those premises are believed to be true on their own. John seems to be incapable of doing this. He appears to be unable to evaluate a premise in my theory independent of my theory. He also can't seem to separate it from the paper it which it was originally asserted. I'm sorry, but that's just not helpful.Re-read post #319 and maybe that'll help. From a scientific-method viewpoint, your "theory" needs demotion to "hypothesis," by the way.

Folks, I want to be able to present a theory and get some honest analysis and productive feedback for it.

...


...which you are getting, at least you were when you first presented it. You got discussion about the angles of vision. You got discussion about the paper you cite your sentence from and keep refering people back to. You got discussion on the theory in particular. You got discussion regarding how your theory matched or didn't match people's experience. You got discussion about other research other people have done. You got discussion from a person (John) who works in risk mitigation and accident prevention as a professional and has a little more than Wikitheory for base knowledge. What more do you want?

However, for the last half dozen (at least) pages, you have simply been engaging in retoric designed to hound people into accepting what you say. You have been getting honest analysis and productive feedback; I don't think this is what you want though. What you want is simple validation. You want people to agree with you, but you don't want to test your "theory" against the thinking of other, experienced cyclists.

Believe it or not, differences of opinion are okay between experienced individuals. It is okay that you and I disagree about a point. It is okay that you and John disagree. What is not okay is resorting to retorical devices to dishonestly argue that yours is the only way. You have been one of the most dishonest participant in this discussion because you refuse to take discussion as it comes. If you want an echo chamber, talk to yourself in the shower.

Folks, I want to be able to present a theory and get some honest analysis and productive feedback for it.

That includes breaking down the theory to fundamental premises and explaining why or why not those premises are believed to be true on their own. John seems to be incapable of doing this. He appears to be unable to evaluate a premise in my theory independent of my theory. He also can't seem to separate it from the paper it which it was originally asserted. I'm sorry, but that's just not helpful.

whew!

I whole heartedly disagree.

John's argument was on topic, clear, obviously backed by experience and appropriate evidence. I've ridden lots of miles on west Coast Highways with logging trucks (and what we called "chip trucks", which often moved at higher speeds and caused turbulence that could send you tumbling into a ditch if they passed too close). The observations and conclusions made by Bek, John Ratliff and others made complete sense to me.

But if all of us were in this thread to run down irrelevant tagents, blind alleyways of illogical hypothesis and engage in endless diatribes and arguments instead of actually talking about bicycling and how to do it safely on a road with a twelve foot shoulder then your post would be on topic.

Your argument was unnecessarily complicated, poorly substantiated and could be wildly confusing to an inexperienced cyclist seeking real counsel on how to ride under such conditions. And that's not just not helpful.

Helmet Head,

Please look up scientific theory in Wikipedia, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

It says:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

You can get our opinions, and have, but that does not test the idea you have. What you have, the sentence you quoted, was a small part of Mr. Green's model for accidents caused by inattentional blindness. The paragraph he wrote, which I quoted above, had three parts, in which any or all of these factors could contribute to inattentional blindness, which could lead to an accident:

1. Low Conspicnity
2. Divided Attention
3. High Expectation or Lower Arousal

Taking words out-of-context renders them meaningless, which (I will repeat) also allows me to say that "this is not what Mr. Green was saying" in his article. You have done that with me too, but taking paragraphs, breaking out individual sentences, and then writing your own paragraph in reply. This is not how you debate concepts, by tearing apart people's ideas and then writing about small fractions of them; it is how a person tries to force people to say things they don't believe. (Yes, I know about that too, as I was through the USAF Survival School training for POWs; this is a technique used to interrogate POWs in prison, in case you don't know it).

Mr. Green's article would explain some accidents, but is not comprehensive. It is a hypothesis that could be combined into a comprehensive model of accident causation, such as Dr. DeJoy's model. Under Dr. DeJoy's model, Mr. Greens hypothesis would be that attentional blindness would fall under the decision-making process, and influenced by pre-disposing and enabling factors.

Now, from a practical standpoint, I made a few observations while driving yesterday and today. First, if I am overtaking a vehicle or bicycle, it makes no difference whether it is in the lane, or in a bike lane, as I will see it. If it is in my lane, then I will need to take evasive measures, which you are equating as "seeing" you. But I saw bicyclists who were in a parking lot next to the road, on a hillside near the road, and in the roadway. I also was driving today on Highway 26, which is three lanes of freeway each way. I noticed the cars ahead of me starting to break, and then noticed yellow strobes to my left, on the far side of the opposing lanes. There was a truck-crane moving barriers, and they had blocked off the outside lane of the opposing roadway (there was a barrier between the east-bound and westbound lanes). The cars in my lane had breaked, and were rubber-necking at this operation, even though it was completely irrelevant to them and their travel. In fact, their actions could have caused an accident in our lane if we were not watching for it.

So, understanding that people have more than a ten degree field of view, and can and do see things to the right and left of the roadway, I fail to see how your technique is better for visibility. I do know that forcing a driver to evade you can give you a pleasing sense of control, but it can have unpleasant consequences too, and your technique of riding the lane in these situations can cause this (especially for log trucks and chip trucks, which are trucks filled with wood chips which are longer, bigger, bulkier and heavier that log trucks).

John

Of interest in this discussion:

relevant

One entry found for relevant.
Main Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

Main Entry: 1in·ter·est
Pronunciation: 'in-t(&-)r&st; 'in-t&-"rest, -"trest; 'in-t&rst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, probably alteration of earlier interesse, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin, to be between, make a difference, concern, from inter- + esse to be -- more at IS
1 a (1) : right, title, or legal share in something (2) : participation in advantage and responsibility b : BUSINESS, COMPANY
2 a : a charge for borrowed money generally a percentage of the amount borrowed b : the profit in goods or money that is made on invested capital c : an excess above what is due or expected <returned the insults with interest>
3 : ADVANTAGE, BENEFIT; also : SELF-INTEREST
4 : SPECIAL INTEREST
5 a : a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : CONCERN b : something that arouses such attention c : a quality in a thing arousing interest

If Mr. Green had said that we pay more attention to something that interests us, I would agree (using the definition in 5a and 5b of the Merrian-Webster OnLine dictionary above). But he used the word "relevant," and so I disagree. Something can have "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" and still be ignored, easily, by someone interested in something else. For instance, I should be studying right now, as I have a test next Wednesday. But this discussion interests me, so I (to some degree) ignore the relevant and go with my interests.

John
So your whole objection rests on splitting hairs about the meaning of the word "relevant"?

Let's look at the original statement in question again:

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

The in some way is pretty wide open, don't you think? In particular, the statement is not, simply:

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

Which seems to be how you're interpreting it, and, on those grounds, rejecting it on some rather nit-picking hair-splitting grounds.

The whole thing wreaks of disingenuousness. Perhaps it started as a sincere disagreement based on a misunderstanding of the question, and taking it out of context. But it has gone way past that now.

All Mr. Green is saying is if something is relevant to us IN SOME WAY (such as it is a SPECIAL INTEREST to us - per definition 4), that we're much more likely to notiice it than if that something is not relevant to us in any way.

And you say you disagree with this because he's using the world "relevant" instead of saying "it interests us"? With all due respect, that's ridiculous.

Just give it up!!!!!!! quit. So long, syornora, get on down the road........enough is enough. Shut up already..........

edit: 14 pages of crap is still crap at the end of the day.

...which you are getting, at least you were when you first presented it. You got discussion about the angles of vision. You got discussion about the paper you cite your sentence from and keep refering people back to. You got discussion on the theory in particular. You got discussion regarding how your theory matched or didn't match people's experience. You got discussion about other research other people have done. You got discussion from a person (John) who works in risk mitigation and accident prevention as a professional and has a little more than Wikitheory for base knowledge. What more do you want?

However, for the last half dozen (at least) pages, you have simply been engaging in retoric designed to hound people into accepting what you say. You have been getting honest analysis and productive feedback; I don't think this is what you want though. What you want is simple validation. You want people to agree with you, but you don't want to test your "theory" against the thinking of other, experienced cyclists.

Believe it or not, differences of opinion are okay between experienced individuals. It is okay that you and I disagree about a point. It is okay that you and John disagree. What is not okay is resorting to retorical devices to dishonestly argue that yours is the only way. You have been one of the most dishonest participant in this discussion because you refuse to take discussion as it comes. If you want an echo chamber, talk to yourself in the shower.
Brian, I agree with much of what you say. I definitely agree differences of opinion are okay. But I do disagree with your assertion-implication that I'm only interested in validation. Of course I want people to agree with me, but not if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I want to be straightened out.

I know I've been very focused on this one point with your Dad, and have been ignoring other peripheral points that have been raised. But that's for a reason, and I don't think it's fair to say I'm dishonest for doing so. There is a larger issue at stake here, and that is how we analyze each other's theories (speaking vernacularly, I know the correct scientific term is hypothesis), and, in particular, how we evaluate individual components of them.

If we can't agree that referring to a hypothesis that happens to be based on a given premise is irrelevant in an explanation of why the premise itself is being rejected, then I don't know what we can agree on.

In the half dozen or so pages that I have been discussing this issue with your Dad, only once did he mention any reason whatsoever to reject the premise in question that did not irrelevantly refer to my hypothesis or Green's paper as his explanation. He finally only recently expanded on that reason, and we're finally discussing it (the hair-splitting about the definition of "relevant"). But, in his latest post I see he's back on the irrelevant stuff again.

Just give it up!!!!!!! quit. So long, syornora, get on down the road........enough is enough. Shut up already..........

edit: 14 pages of crap is still crap at the end of the day.

again.....

whew!

I whole heartedly disagree.

John's argument was on topic, clear, obviously backed by experience and appropriate evidence.
Please explain to me how, when the topic was why he disagreed with the statement in question,

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

His clear argument, obviously backed by experience and appropriate evidence, addressing my overall hypothesis, was "on topic"? That is, how was it explaining why he disagreed with the above statement?

I've ridden lots of miles on west Coast Highways with logging trucks ...
What does riding on highways with logging trucks have to do with whether or not the statement in question is true? How is this "on topic"? I agree it is "on topic" with the overall topic of this thread, but my question was simply about this one statement from Green's paper. So to be "on topic" meant explaining why John disagreed with the statement. which had nothing (at least not directly) to do with logging trucks and roads, or even cycling.


(and what we called "chip trucks", which often moved at higher speeds and caused turbulence that could send you tumbling into a ditch if they passed too close). The observations and conclusions made by Bek, John Ratliff and others made complete sense to me.
Most of them made sense to me too. What didn't make sense to me was how they explained why John disagreed with the statement in question.

But if all of us were in this thread to run down irrelevant tagents, blind alleyways of illogical hypothesis and engage in endless diatribes and arguments instead of actually talking about bicycling and how to do it safely on a road with a twelve foot shoulder then your post would be on topic.
Hey, if one thinks establishing consensus on the truth or falsehood of the statement in question is an "irrelevant tangent" or "blind alleyway of illogical hypothesis, that's fine. It's a free country. But that's not what John said. At first (like for three pages) he wouldn't say one way or the other, and wouldn't really say why. Then he finally said flat-out he disagreed with it and his explanation for that made no sense to me (and still doesn't). That's been the topic, or sub-topic, between us. And with that particular sub-topic in mind, I don't see how anyone could say his posts were "on topic".

Your argument was unnecessarily complicated, poorly substantiated and could be wildly confusing to an inexperienced cyclist seeking real counsel on how to ride under such conditions. And that's not just not helpful.
I will address this later. Right now I want to stay focused on the statement in question, because without achieving consensus on it, one way or the other, there is no point in discussing anything else.

idiot.........

Please explain to me how, when the topic was why he disagreed with the statement in question,

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

His clear argument, obviously backed by experience and appropriate evidence, addressing my overall hypothesis, was "on topic"? That is, how was it explaining why he disagreed with the above statement?


What does riding on highways with logging trucks have to do with whether or not the statement in question is true? How is this "on topic"? I agree it is "on topic" with the overall topic of this thread, but my question was simply about this one statement from Green's paper. So to be "on topic" meant explaining why John disagreed with this statement.



Most of them made sense to me too. What didn't make sense to me was how they explained why John disagreed with the statement in question.


Hey, if one thinks establishing consensus on the truth or falsehood of the statement in question is an "irrelevant tangent" or "blind alleyway of illogical hypothesis, that's fine. It's a free country. But that's not what John said. At first (like for three pages) he wouldn't say one way or the other, and wouldn't really say why. Then he finally said flat-out he disagreed with it and his explanation for that made no sense to me (and still doesn't). That's been the topic, or sub-topic, between us. And with that particular sub-topic in mind, I don't see how anyone could say his posts were "on topic".


I will address this later. Right now I want to stay focused on the statement in question, because without achieving consensus on it, one way or the other, there is no point in discussing anything else.LOL... go to bed, Helmet Head! :D Or go ride your bike or something.

I guess his meds just kicked in........

Helmet Head,

Please look up scientific theory in Wikipedia, at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

It says: ...

I don't need to read a Wikipedia article to learn what a scientific theory is. For the record, I agree with everything it says.

You can get our opinions, and have, but that does not test the idea you have.
Agreed.

What you have, the sentence you quoted, was a small part of Mr. Green's model for accidents caused by inattentional blindness.
Agreed.

The paragraph he wrote, which I quoted above, had three parts, in which any or all of these factors could contribute to inattentional blindness, which could lead to an accident:

1. Low Conspicnity
2. Divided Attention
3. High Expectation or Lower Arousal
Agreed.

Taking words out-of-context renders them meaningless,
I asked you whether you agreed with those words in that article. I linked you to the article. I was obviously asking you to interpret those words in the context of that article, not some other context.

But, now that you bring it up... what meaning do you think those words have in the article that they don't have when you say you disagree with them "out of context"? Perhaps there is some other way to interpret them that I'm not seeing because I've only interpreted these words in the context in which I first read them, in the paper. But maybe there is some other meaning which you could point out to me. Anyway, whatever it is, the only one one I've ever intended is the one intended by Green in his paper.

which (I will repeat) also allows me to say that "this is not what Mr. Green was saying" in his article.
Saying "this is not what Mr. Green was saying" can only be true if you insist on an interpretation of those words that is different from Green's intended meaning in the article. Why would you do that, and what would that interpretation be?

You have done that with me too, but taking paragraphs, breaking out individual sentences, and then writing your own paragraph in reply.
Taking a sentence out of a paragraph and commenting on it is not necessarily taking it out of context. It is taking it out of context only if one interprets those words with a different meaning than was originally intended. I'm very sensitive to that (God knows others do it to me all the time... but not you), so if I've ever done it, I assure you, it was inadvertent and an honest mistake. If you ever believe I've done that, please point it out to me.

As far as Green's words go, by the way, you seem to be the one taking them out of context, not me. I just quoted them and asked you if you agreed with them, assuming the same meaning that was given to them by Green in his paper. Why you chose to interpret them differently, and then say you disagreed with them, and even say Green didn't say that, is beyond me. I'm really looking forward to learning what your explanation for that is.

This is not how you debate concepts, by tearing apart people's ideas and then writing about small fractions of them;
Green's paper, like any paper, consists of many concepts. Breaking down a paper, hypothesis or broad idea into individual concepts and evaluating them individually IS how one debates these issues, and is exactly what I'm trying to do. (Brian, see, this is the broader issue to which I referred in my reply to you).

The key thing, of course, when breaking down the broader concepts into smaller concepts is to retain the meaning from the original broad context.

it is how a person tries to force people to say things they don't believe.
John, if I was taking words with which you agreed out of context, and changing their meaning, then THAT would be an example of how "a person tries to force people to say things they don't believe". But I have no interest in doing that. While I do not mind debate, I despise false debate. My only interest is honest sharing and testing of ideas. For me, that means identify the premises, establish their acceptance, develop reason and logic that leads to conclusions. Show how those conclusions do or do not follow form the premises, etc. Anything else would be a complete waste of time. Please do not confuse legitimate breaking down of broader concepts into smaller more fundamental concepts, and evaluating them independently, while retaining their meaning from the original context, with taking words out of context and disingenuousness.

(Yes, I know about that too, as I was through the USAF Survival School training for POWs; this is a technique used to interrogate POWs in prison, in case you don't know it).
Yes, I was born yesterday and so I'm startled to learn this. Sorry to be so snide, but it's late and this is really getting ridiculous.

Mr. Green's article would explain some accidents, but is not comprehensive. It is a hypothesis that could be combined into a comprehensive model of accident causation, such as Dr. DeJoy's model. Under Dr. DeJoy's model, Mr. Greens hypothesis would be that attentional blindness would fall under the decision-making process, and influenced by pre-disposing and enabling factors.
Agreed. So what? What does this have to do with whether you agree with Green's words in the statement in question assuming the meaning from the original context?


Now, from a practical standpoint, I made a few observations while driving yesterday and today. First, if I am overtaking a vehicle or bicycle, it makes no difference whether it is in the lane, or in a bike lane, as I will see it. If it is in my lane, then I will need to take evasive measures, which you are equating as "seeing" you. But I saw bicyclists who were in a parking lot next to the road, on a hillside near the road, and in the roadway. I also was driving today on Highway 26, which is three lanes of freeway each way. I noticed the cars ahead of me starting to break, and then noticed yellow strobes to my left, on the far side of the opposing lanes. There was a truck-crane moving barriers, and they had blocked off the outside lane of the opposing roadway (there was a barrier between the east-bound and westbound lanes). The cars in my lane had breaked, and were rubber-necking at this operation, even though it was completely irrelevant to them and their travel. In fact, their actions could have caused an accident in our lane if we were not watching for it.

So, understanding that people have more than a ten degree field of view, and can and do see things to the right and left of the roadway, I fail to see how your technique is better for visibility. I do know that forcing a driver to evade you can give you a pleasing sense of control, but it can have unpleasant consequences too, and your technique of riding the lane in these situations can cause this (especially for log trucks and chip trucks, which are trucks filled with wood chips which are longer, bigger, bulkier and heavier that log trucks).

I'm not going to participate in the overall debate with you until we agree on some of the fundamental points about what is and is not appropriate in logical debate raised earlier in this post and the last couple I've made. For example, as long as you treat every problem breakdown into components necessarily as taking words out of context, there is no way we can ever make progress in a "logical debate".

idiot.........
If that's the best you can do, I must have finally made my point.

G'night!

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.(emphasis added by JCR)
Helmet Head,

I think we are into a generation gap area here. When I learned writing, I learned paragraph formation whereby the first sentence in the main point of the paragraph, and subsequent sentences are to back up that idea. A paragraph was based upon one idea, you expanded on that idea, and then if there are other ideas, you go to another paragraph. Looking at Wikipedia, I see that there are two interpretations, one of non-fiction writing and one for prose fiction and literary writing. The structures are different, and here the main points can come within the paragraph. I read non-fiction, and write technical papers. So I am using the former format. Here's the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

So when I look at the above paragraph, the main topic Mr. Green is discussing is There is more to conspicuity that just sensory quality. He then expands it to say, in the third sentence, We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way. So he, to me, was using this as a lead-in for his next examples, and not as the main point of his paragraph, or paper.

Even so, I simply do not agree with the use of the word "relevant."

I've given you the definitions, and feel his point would be much better made if he used the word "interesting" in the above sentence. Relevance has nothing to do with it. I have given you examples of drivers rubbernecking, of a pilot flying into a mountain, of me seeing bicyclists who are to the side and not "relavant" to my situation at the moment, of hawks on fence posts, and others which really are not relevent to my driving, or that of others, but which "grab" the driver's or my attention. This is an important nit to split (or should I say, pick;) ), as it has to do with how we perceive things. This is why laser pointers can be very hazardous to pilots, even though they are not relevant to his/her task of landing a plane.

Now, let's talk about splitting up paragraphs, and analyzing individual components. I find this technique very disturbing, as it can be used to dissect an idea into things that were not intended. Maybe in fiction writing, it is something literary people do. But when science writing, we try to discuss things in complete ideas. Your ideas are very difficult to follow if you use this technique, and to me this seems to be a technique of harrassment. That is my perception of your technique; it may be a generation gap situation, but you should know that it exists in my mind, and perhaps that of others. So I request, when you write of my ideas, quote the entire paragraph I write, then discuss it in paragraphs that you write.

John

Because I've been riding and using a helmet mirror since they came out in the '80s. It's not as if I'm some newbie. When I look in my mirror, there's no HUD overlay indicating that the vehicle is closing at 31mph and its dV/dT is -3.2mph/s. Come back with a real rebuttal and a clear explaination of how, precisely, I would do this stuff (or a 12-year-old kid, either), or concede the point.

I've conceded the point that it is not always possible to verify whether or not an approaching motorist has noticed me. What I was trying to get it is that throwing out the entire concept of DLLP just because you cannot always tell whether or not you have been noticed is missing the main points of DLLP.

Yes, that's realistic to expect. I'd find it unrealistic to expect them to be overtaking an unknown something with a very intense red strobe, getting brighter as they get closer, and not keep track of it. And the fact stands: you're visible from that far away, and the lane is not. So lane position is null. If you want a real-world scenario, my trips down 57th with my SuperFlash and my ANSI Class III vest were inspiring some motorists to pass me with 30 feet of clearance, they were clear into the center-turn lane. And they were on approach to me for probably 3/4 mile at that point as I rode along in the bike lane on the other side of the magical white line.

Post something that makes sense. How would I, driving in my car, be able to predict that you're going to suddenly pull into my lane, ride there, then pull out of it when I'm a certain distance away? Would it make any sense to the viewer? If I saw you, I'd be preparing a contingency plan from a long way back, only to find that HAHA SIKE! it turns out to be wasted effort because you were just posturing. Discourteous. If someone aims a gun at you, pulls the trigger, and HAHA SIKE! there was no ammo in it, is it "no harm, no foul?"

So with your "very intense red strobe" you ellicit a "take-action" response from motorists that causes them to move clear into the center turn lane to go around you and that's just fine yet someone riding in the lane to be visible is being an a-hole for trying to get the motorists attention? I don't get it.

You also seem hung up on the fact that it's discourteous to be a part of traffic and to want to be noticed and even "given a brake" (like those discourteous construction workers who want people to slow when they pass). I don't find it discourteous at all and neither do the vast majority of motorists. And I couldn't care less about the random honk or two I get from someone who thinks I should have moved earlier. I can assure you that I get way more harassment in narrow lanes when there is absolutely nothing I can do than when I sit in the way of approaching traffic and then move over to allow them to pass.

It takes little effort to type up a blurb to the effect of "Always use a bright-colored outer layer of clothing and a daytime-visible tailstrobe such as a ______ (pick one), because the first phase of conspicuity is to be visible, and you can greatly accelerate the process by doing this. In fact, with good visibility equipment, DLP is normally not necessary in the first place." For someone who claims to be concerned for others' safety, why do we really we hear nothing about this? Don't tell me it's because he can't be bothered to type it, I'm not buying that ;)

Or he could write what he does write which is along the lines of by "using DLLP, normal people who aren't going to buy daytime visible strobes or wear neon outer layers to go to the mall can be as visible as they could ever want to be."

My actual video testing from inside a car at night didn't support your claim. I had to get within a pretty critical distance before it was obvious. A pity I don't still have that video clip.

I'll admit that I don't know the actual distance from behind at which point passing traffic can ascertain my lane position but if safety is a concern, I'd prefer them to be wondering and slowing down until they could make the decision of whether or not it is safe to pass. But if I am in the lane, they are much more likely to take notice of me as they get closer. I'm also much less likely to run into an obstacle in the shoulder hidden by darkness or to be overlooked at the next intersection by oncoming or cross traffic. If you find that video clip, I'd like to see it. One of these days I'm going to get footage of similar situations for myself as well.

So when road conditions and visibility are bad, you stop actively seeking for pedestrians coming up the sidewalk to cross in the crosswalk, cars sliding helplessly into your path from side streets on the ice...? And you just focus on the road straight ahead of you instead? Brilliant! And all this time I've been stupidly looking extra-hard through the rain-splattered windshield for pedestrians and little kids on bikes, while driving slower. And watching the intersections carefully to avoid those sliding cars. And probably 50 other stupid things like that. What a fool I am..

I didn't mention intersections in my post but how I treat intersections is much different than how I treat an open stretch of road during bad conditions. If a cyclist is off in the shoulder as traffic approaches, I think drivers would be much less likely to continue to focus on the cyclist as they approach and put their focus instead ahead of the cyclist. It would be very easy to lose track of exactly where the cyclist was due to loss or peripheral vision.

Right, but what do you do when you can't use lane position? Such as when the traffic flow is too dense to intrude? Do you just say "oh well" and give up? How about trying a hi-vis setup such as a neon-lime outer layer and a SuperFlash, to give you a secondary all-conditions, all-hours conspicuity strategy that works when you can't use DLLP?

When traffic flow is too dense to intrude (between intersections at least), I monitor traffic with my mirror. Assuming traffic is tailgating as it so often is, there's little chance that the second or third car in the pack can see me anyway so no amount of flashing lights is going to do me any good. Assuming I was DLLP before the pack approached though, the lead driver likely slowed enough to alert the drivers behind him that something was going on. That "discourteous" tap of the brakes that I caused can go a long way in giving me more time to react to any errant motorist in the pack. At intersections, I merge back into traffic if need be or continue to monitor passing motorists just like I would at any other time. Obviously, I use lights at appropriate times to ensure that I can be seen but I don't rely on them to ensure I'm noticed and accounted for.

I find it reduces my overall safety to try to watch the mirror so much so that I could say "ahh, the car has done X, they've seen me." It takes time that I could be devoting to watching for other stuff, such as jaywalkers.

How fast do the jaywalkers in your area move? I can deal with devoting a little less attention to slower moving things in the road than I can with objects moving at 20 times the speed. If you were in the lane to begin with, the jaywalker would be much more likely to take notice of you and you'd have greater seperation from the unpredictable ped which is always a good thing.

All well and good, if you actually need to take the lane then go for it. If you get your Nova, then there shouldn't be any excuses about them not having advance warning that they need to change lanes, day or night. Well, or not the lead car in the pack, anyway.

To help you understand my perspective on all this, a lot of the motorists around here are impatient and don't handle it well when they're obstructed by cyclists. On a recent group ride, some of our riders had stuff thrown at them, and on another, we had punks harrassing the group from a K-car (instant karma backlash, they then tried to whip around a corner fast and ended up side-on into a fire hydrant :D). Other people in this thread and other threads mention what would happen (or has happened) to cyclists getting too uppity (or assertive, if you like). I've had a run-in with a guy with a handgun for simply riding on a 4-lane arterial and not getting onto the sidewalk when he honked (OMG he had to *gasp* change to the other lane!) ¿Comprende?

Impatient motorists are everywhere. I encountered many yesterday on a 72 mile ride with my 64 year old dad that sometimes had us climbing hills at 5mph on a 45mph road with heavy (for a weekend) traffic. I partly blame myself for bad route selection but that still does not excuse the behavior of a few motorists who caused opposing traffic to stop or in some instances leave the roadway partway so that they could force their way past us. But we're talking about narrow lanes here where DLLP isn't really in effect. No rage was incited from the same group of motorists when using DLLP where possible. In fact, of the few friendly waves we received, about half of them came from motorists who passed after we were using the lane then moved over to allow them to pass (the other half came from waving motorists by who wouldn't pass on a narrow lane roadway even when the road ahead was perfectly clear.

Please explain to me how, when the topic was why he disagreed with the statement in question,

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

His clear argument, obviously backed by experience and appropriate evidence, addressing my overall hypothesis, was "on topic"? That is, how was it explaining why he disagreed with the above statement?


No, I absolutely will not engage in such mindless discourse.

Life is far too short and there are far too many roads to ride and far more important subjects in the world to wrap my mind, time and energy around than satisfying your need to entangle everyone in this forum in your narrow perspective and insatiable need to command attention.

In the time it would take to craft a rebuttal to your post I could ride 10 miles or read 50 pages of a good book. Totally not worth it because you do not listen and you do not change. You are indeed Helmet Head and your brain is safely ensconsed and completely impenetrable to outside input.

So with your "very intense red strobe" you ellicit a "take-action" response from motorists that causes them to move clear into the center turn lane to go around you and that's just fine yet someone riding in the lane to be visible is being an a-hole for trying to get the motorists attention? I don't get it.That's their option, since there's plenty of room for them in the lane right next to the bike lane. The difference is that you aren't leaving them the option to use their lane (or so it appears until they get within the magical 5-second zone). Now you get it.

You also seem hung up on the fact that it's discourteous to be a part of traffic and to want to be noticed and even "given a brake" (like those discourteous construction workers who want people to slow when they pass). I don't find it discourteous at all and neither do the vast majority of motorists. And I couldn't care less about the random honk or two I get from someone who thinks I should have moved earlier. I can assure you that I get way more harassment in narrow lanes when there is absolutely nothing I can do than when I sit in the way of approaching traffic and then move over to allow them to pass.Again, when the option exists to let people go their own speed, I'm going to do it. I don't drive 55mph in the passing lane on the freeway for miles and miles when passing a motorhome going 54.95 mph either, even if I have every right to.

Or he could write what he does write which is along the lines of by "using DLLP, normal people who aren't going to buy daytime visible strobes or wear neon outer layers to go to the mall can be as visible as they could ever want to be."See this thread about difficulty in seeing through glare: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=231117 Still sure your solution is always going to work?

Remember, your pal Helmet Head is so clueless that he believes THIS, apparently without doing any critical thinking of his own:

Everything I have ever read on the topic of visibility at night indicates that the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly with respect to establishing sensoral conspicuity at night. That is, especially for reducing overtaking collisions, the difference between nothing and a single red reflector makes a huge difference. After that, adding additional reflectors and lights is quickly subject to the law of diminishing returns. And, as the article indicates, there is such a thing as too much sensoral conspicuity.
Quite the traffic-safety "expert," eh? This just scares me. See http://www.mechbgon.com/visibility/activevpassive.html, comparision #3. Although I think you already have a grip on this.


I'll admit that I don't know the actual distance from behind at which point passing traffic can ascertain my lane position but if safety is a concern, I'd prefer them to be wondering and slowing down until they could make the decision of whether or not it is safe to pass. But if I am in the lane, they are much more likely to take notice of me as they get closer. I'm also much less likely to run into an obstacle in the shoulder hidden by darkness or to be overlooked at the next intersection by oncoming or cross traffic. If you find that video clip, I'd like to see it. One of these days I'm going to get footage of similar situations for myself as well.You can refer to my EBSLP thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=231287). No need to ride anywhere but the shoulder for recognition reasons.



I didn't mention intersections in my post but how I treat intersections is much different than how I treat an open stretch of road during bad conditions. If a cyclist is off in the shoulder as traffic approaches, I think drivers would be much less likely to continue to focus on the cyclist as they approach and put their focus instead ahead of the cyclist. It would be very easy to lose track of exactly where the cyclist was due to loss or peripheral vision.I've found that a running headlight has more "stopping power" than lane position. If you want to see a recount of some real-world situations I've posted in the past where lane position at intersections didn't help but DRLs did, I can go dredge some up. Here's one to start with: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2799140&postcount=186 Want some more? Post #19 in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=207167).



When traffic flow is too dense to intrude (between intersections at least), I monitor traffic with my mirror. Assuming traffic is tailgating as it so often is, there's little chance that the second or third car in the pack can see me anyway so no amount of flashing lights is going to do me any good. Assuming I was DLLP before the pack approached though, the lead driver likely slowed enough to alert the drivers behind him that something was going on. That "discourteous" tap of the brakes that I caused can go a long way in giving me more time to react to any errant motorist in the pack. At intersections, I merge back into traffic if need be or continue to monitor passing motorists just like I would at any other time. Obviously, I use lights at appropriate times to ensure that I can be seen but I don't rely on them to ensure I'm noticed and accounted for.I'd recommend adding an eye-catching outer layer. Neon lime turns my head in the real world even from my peripheral vision. An ANSI vest is a low-maintenance cheap item that you don't have to wear into the mall when you get there. ;) And I recommend a SuperFlash, they WILL add to your conspicuity. Strobing stuff catches peripheral vision especially well and has that double-take factor, day or night. I mean c'mon, you can afford a pair of AAA batteries every few weeks, guy.


How fast do the jaywalkers in your area move? I can deal with devoting a little less attention to slower moving things in the road than I can with objects moving at 20 times the speed. If you were in the lane to begin with, the jaywalker would be much more likely to take notice of you and you'd have greater seperation from the unpredictable ped which is always a good thing.Riding through the section of downtown that's got all the bars would probably cure you of thinking that jaywalkers can be relied upon to guard their well-being. At any rate, my real-world observation is that if I fixate on my mirror, I'm less attentive to my forward direction. Remember, DLP as preached by Helmet Head doesn't just involve glancing in the mirror once in a while, you're supposed to be MONITORING the cars for signs of driver reaction (unreliable anyway... see my EBSLP thread, Part 2 Conclusions). That takes time since you have to get a "baseline reading" in order to have something to judge by.

Impatient motorists are everywhere.Yep. All of them armed with potentially-deadly weapons. I'm not into provoking them without some sort of obvious reason for my behavior.

You are indeed Helmet Head and your brain is safely ensconsed and completely impenetrable to outside input.
Pot, meet kettle.

Now, let's talk about splitting up paragraphs, and analyzing individual components. I find this technique very disturbing, as it can be used to dissect an idea into things that were not intended. Maybe in fiction writing, it is something literary people do. But when science writing, we try to discuss things in complete ideas. Your ideas are very difficult to follow if you use this technique, and to me this seems to be a technique of harrassment. That is my perception of your technique; it may be a generation gap situation, but you should know that it exists in my mind, and perhaps that of others. So I request, when you write of my ideas, quote the entire paragraph I write, then discuss it in paragraphs that you write.

Let's start with this. I like to quote and respond just to make it clear exactly what I'm referring to. While I often pick out individual key sentences, I assume anyone who is not clear on the context of that sentence can scroll back to the original post and see the full thing. But usually I break up the quote into component pieces and respond to each piece.

I agree this technique can be used to "dissect an idea into things that were not intended". But I hope you are not implying that that's what I do. If you think I have done that, I hope you would give me the benefit of the doubt, assume some kind of miscommunication occured, and bring it to my attention. Thanks.

Now on to the rest of your post. In deference to what you seem to be requesting, I will quote the entire thing in whole first.


I think we are into a generation gap area here. When I learned writing, I learned paragraph formation whereby the first sentence in the main point of the paragraph, and subsequent sentences are to back up that idea. A paragraph was based upon one idea, you expanded on that idea, and then if there are other ideas, you go to another paragraph. Looking at Wikipedia, I see that there are two interpretations, one of non-fiction writing and one for prose fiction and literary writing. The structures are different, and here the main points can come within the paragraph. I read non-fiction, and write technical papers. So I am using the former format. Here's the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

So when I look at the above paragraph, the main topic Mr. Green is discussing is There is more to conspicuity that just sensory quality. He then expands it to say, in the third sentence, We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way. So he, to me, was using this as a lead-in for his next examples, and not as the main point of his paragraph, or paper.

Even so, I simply do not agree with the use of the word "relevant."

I've given you the definitions, and feel his point would be much better made if he used the word "interesting" in the above sentence. Relevance has nothing to do with it. I have given you examples of drivers rubbernecking, of a pilot flying into a mountain, of me seeing bicyclists who are to the side and not "relavant" to my situation at the moment, of hawks on fence posts, and others which really are not relevent to my driving, or that of others, but which "grab" the driver's or my attention. This is an important nit to split (or should I say, pick;) ), as it has to do with how we perceive things. This is why laser pointers can be very hazardous to pilots, even though they are not relevant to his/her task of landing a plane.

You write of a generation gap. I was born in 1961. Is it much of a gap? I agree with interpreting the sentence in the context of the paragraph; I agree the statement in question is an expansion on the opening sentence of the paragraph, There is more to conspicuity that just sensory quality. I also agree this one paragraph is not the main point of the paragraph or the paper. And it is within that context of contrasting cognitive conspicuity and sensory conspicuity in which the statement is made, and in which I have always been asking you whether you agree with it.

As far as your objection to the use of the word relevant, and citing the definition you cited, and your preference for the word "interesting", I don't necessarily disgree with you.

BUT, the fact that one's interest is also a significant factor in determining whether someone notices something or not, has no bearing on whether the statement about relevance is true. Let's look at the statement again:

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

The examples that you provided (rubbernecking, pilot flying into mountain) simply show that relevance is not the only factor that determines whether something will be noticed or not. Of course there are other factors. These other factors may even be more significant than relevance. None of that is eliminated by this statement being true.

In other words the following statements mean different things, but both are true:

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 interest us in some way.

One being true does not invalidate the other being true, so I don't understand how your insistence that (B) is true (with which I have no quarrel) some how explains why you do not agree that (A) is true.

For example, a particular driver may have no interest in nuns, but he'll probably notice one in the crosswalk up ahead in his intended path because she's relevant to him, and because, we are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.

Honestly, this seems so blatantly obvious to me, I can't understand how anyone can disagree with it for any rational reason.

Pot, meet kettle.

:roflmao:

you crack me up!

though you may fail to elucidate you never fail to entertain.

thanks- keep that sense of humour.

Helmet Head,

I've already said:

If Mr. Green had said that we pay more attention to something that interests us, I would agree (using the definition in 5a and 5b of the Merrian-Webster OnLine dictionary above). But he used the word "relevant," and so I disagree. Something can have "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" and still be ignored, easily, by someone interested in something else. For instance, I should be studying right now, as I have a test next Wednesday. But this discussion interests me, so I (to some degree) ignore the relevant and go with my interests.

Something can have relevance, and be ignored. "Much more likely" is not quantifiable, and I simply don't think it is "much more likely." It is more likely, but not that much more likely to be seen, or perceived. If it were, Mr. Green would have seen his wife at that encounter he described. And I would be studying right now (which I'm about to do).

The accident investigation realm is filled with people who missed "relevant" details. That's one reason for the accidents. And it doesn't matter if it is right in front, or slightly to the side, of a driver. If (s)he misses it, (s)he misses it. Your premise is that a driver is "much more likely" to see a bicyclist in the lane than in a bike lane. I simply don't think so, based upon my experience. Causing a driver to react to your presence to show you that he or she has seen you by being in his or her way presumes a cogniscent (spelling may be incorrect here) driver. But if that person is having this "attentional blindness," (s)he won't see you.

John

John

That's their option, since there's plenty of room for them in the lane right next to the bike lane. The difference is that you aren't leaving them the option to use their lane (or so it appears until they get within the magical 5-second zone). Now you get it.

They have the option of slowing down and staying in their lane or passing in another lane. If I've got a wide shoulder to move into, I'm much more likely to make sure they haven't really slowed at all before passing anyway. The more narrow the shoulder, the more likely I am to wait until I get some response before moving (if I don't have to use a slightly narrow shoulder, I'd rather not). Again, I'm not so concerned about being seen from behind as I am with using the best part of the roadway and being in the best position for oncoming and cross traffic to see me.

Our big disagreement here is whether or not it's courteous to slow someone down when you could technically just let them go by at full speed. I prefer to be passed slower when possible and you don't care either way. I think the aside from that, we'd probably get along just fine on a bike ride.

Again, when the option exists to let people go their own speed, I'm going to do it. I don't drive 55mph in the passing lane on the freeway for miles and miles when passing a motorhome going 54.95 mph either, even if I have every right to.

I don't go 15mph in the right lane in heavy traffic when there's a large shoulder available even though I'm not required to use the shoulder in that instance. I am allowed to, though, so if it doesn't affect my safety and allows traffic to get past me a little quicker, then I do it. I swear, I'm not a discourteous cyclist :) I don't slow people down just because I feel like being a pain. If I have options, I use them when safe and practicable. But I'm always going to default to what I believe is the best option and in my experience, that's the roadway, not the shoulder.

See this thread about difficulty in seeing through glare: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=231117 Still sure your solution is always going to work?

In this situation, I'd rather use the active solution (doing everything I can to be noticed but move aside where I can) than the passive solution (ride off to the side and hope no one crosses my path).

Remember, your pal Helmet Head is so clueless that he believes THIS, apparently without doing any critical thinking of his own:

Quite the traffic-safety "expert," eh? This just scares me. See http://www.mechbgon.com/visibility/activevpassive.html, comparision #3. Although I think you already have a grip on this.

The law of diminishing returns doesn't mean that an extra light doesn't get you anything. Under normal conditions, I do think a reflector alone can provide plenty of visibility for a cyclist at night. I've seen plenty of cyclists riding this way and have never have a problem spotting them from behind at least. Riding on higher speed roadways I can see the benefit that active lighting offers in being noticed earlier. There is also a benefit during fog, heavy rain, and snow to running active lighting. I see these conditions with enough regularity that I want to always be prepared for them. I think the statements that Helmet Head has made are sufficient, especially since it simply refers to nighttime. Do you disagree that the difference between nothing and a single red reflector at night is not huge?

You can refer to my EBSLP thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=231287). No need to ride anywhere but the shoulder for recognition reasons.

But I've given plenty of reasons for why I prefer not to ride in the shoulder the whole time. You seem to want to ignore all of those points and simply focus on the fact that at night you can be seen easily in the shoulder with a lot of active lighting.

I've found that a running headlight has more "stopping power" than lane position. If you want to see a recount of some real-world situations I've posted in the past where lane position at intersections didn't help but DRLs did, I can go dredge some up. Here's one to start with: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2799140&postcount=186 Want some more? Post #19 in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=207167).

At night, I've found a brighter headlight does have more "stopping power" than a lower powered one. That "stopping power" doesn't have much of an added benefit other than the "wow" factor though. It does allow me to ride faster though. I can't argue about running a high powered light in the daytime as it's not something I've experimented with yet. I've only had my L&M Arc for a couple months now and while I love it at night, it just seems like a waste to run it in broad daylight when I don't have problems with being seen at intersections. You admit yourself that it was a "fluke" that you got overlooked in those situations and that defensive driving and familiarity with your routes has made the biggest difference. I agree with all 3 of those comments.

I'd recommend adding an eye-catching outer layer. Neon lime turns my head in the real world even from my peripheral vision. An ANSI vest is a low-maintenance cheap item that you don't have to wear into the mall when you get there. ;) And I recommend a SuperFlash, they WILL add to your conspicuity. Strobing stuff catches peripheral vision especially well and has that double-take factor, day or night. I mean c'mon, you can afford a pair of AAA batteries every few weeks, guy.

I get enough of a double-take by just riding a bike around here :)

Riding through the section of downtown that's got all the bars would probably cure you of thinking that jaywalkers can be relied upon to guard their well-being. At any rate, my real-world observation is that if I fixate on my mirror, I'm less attentive to my forward direction. Remember, DLP as preached by Helmet Head doesn't just involve glancing in the mirror once in a while, you're supposed to be MONITORING the cars for signs of driver reaction (unreliable anyway... see my EBSLP thread, Part 2 Conclusions). That takes time since you have to get a "baseline reading" in order to have something to judge by.

In a downtown area, I wouldn't devote much attention to my rearview anyway. At the slower speeds in those areas and the prevelance of pedestrians and intersections, your focus is better devoted to what's ahead of you. Being centered in the lane allows you to not be so concerned about right and left hooks at those intersections in addition to distancing you from the curb if a ped steps out without looking at all. You're trying to combine two arguments into one when they are dealing with completely different situations (open road monitoring occasional same direction traffic and busy downtown core).

Yep. All of them armed with potentially-deadly weapons. I'm not into provoking them without some sort of obvious reason for my behavior.

Like HH has said before and like I've seen as well, riding in the lane and moving aside for faster traffic does not provoke anyone and often (more often than just riding to the side at least, I'll admit it's rare though) results in a friendly acknowledgement from the passerbys. You need to understand that I'm not swerving in front of anyone. I'm not causing them to do anything more than maybe take their foot off the gas pedal for a few seconds unless I have a very good reason to. I think the odds are on my side that I'll get hit by a turning vehicle when riding off to the side before I'll encounter a homocidal maniac on the road who got pissed off because I moved out of his way.

Helmet Head,

I've already said:

If Mr. Green had said that we pay more attention to something that interests us, I would agree (using the definition in 5a and 5b of the Merrian-Webster OnLine dictionary above). But he used the word "relevant," and so I disagree. Something can have "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" and still be ignored, easily, by someone interested in something else. For instance, I should be studying right now, as I have a test next Wednesday. But this discussion interests me, so I (to some degree) ignore the relevant and go with my interests.



Yes, John, and I've already pointed out:

The examples that you provided (rubbernecking, pilot flying into mountain) simply show that relevance is not the only factor that determines whether something will be noticed or not. Of course there are other factors. These other factors may even be more significant than relevance. None of that is eliminated by this statement being true.

In other words the following statements mean different things, but both are true:

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 interest us in some way.

One being true does not invalidate the other being true, so I don't understand how your insistence that (B) is true (with which I have no quarrel) some how explains why you do not agree that (A) is true.



Something can have relevance, and be ignored. "Much more likely" is not quantifiable, and I simply don't think it is "much more likely." It is more likely, but not that much more likely to be seen, or perceived. If it were, Mr. Green would have seen his wife at that encounter he described. And I would be studying right now (which I'm about to do).

The accident investigation realm is filled with people who missed "relevant" details. That's one reason for the accidents. And it doesn't matter if it is right in front, or slightly to the side, of a driver. If (s)he misses it, (s)he misses it. Your premise is that a driver is "much more likely" to see a bicyclist in the lane than in a bike lane. I simply don't think so, based upon my experience. Causing a driver to react to your presence to show you that he or she has seen you by being in his or her way presumes a cogniscent (spelling may be incorrect here) driver. But if that person is having this "attentional blindness," (s)he won't see you.

John
Yes, John, something can have relevance and be ignored. But how is the fact that something can have relevance and be ignored an explanation for why you or anyone else would disagree with the statement in question?

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

Surely you would agree that something might not be noticed even if it is of interest to the observer in question. In either case, his attention might be occupied by something else that is either relevant or interesting. But, never-the-less, it's still true that:

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

After, 8 or so pages of me asking you repeatedly for a rational explanation to your disagreement, now you conjure a new semantic objection... that "much more likely" is not quantifiable? Why have you never mentioned this before? Once again, this wreaks of disingenuousness. In fact, you leave us with no choice but to hope that you're playing dumb, for the alternative is pathetic.

Your latest excuse for not agreeing with the statement is because "much more likely" is not quantifiable. Never-the-less, in the very next sentence, you declare that you don't think it is "much more likely." (how would you know, if it's not quantifiable?) You proceed to agree that it is "more likely" (ah, I see, "more likely" is quantifiable enough to be able to agree with an assertion that uses it, but "much more likely" is not? :rolleyes:). Despite your claim that "much more likely" is not quantifiable, somehow you are able to conclude that if the statement in question using "much more likely" were true, then "Mr. Green would have seen his wife at that encounter he described."

You can't have it both ways, John. You can't disagree with a statement on the basis that it is meaningless because it uses "unquantifiable" language like "much more likely", while making assertions and conclusions using the same supposedly "unquantifiable" language.

You then proceed to once again point out the obvious, that many accidents occur precisely because the relevant was not seen, as if that is an explanation for why one might disagree with the statement in question. It's absurd, of course, because the fact that we are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way is why we don't have many, many more crashes. If we weren't much more likely to notice things that are relevant to us in some way, then we would have crashes at every intersection (people notice red lights and stop signs because they are relevant to them, not because they're interesting). Crashes, thankfully, are a relatively rare exception to any trip, and this is because we are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way. If relevance did not matter, and we only noticed things "of interest", life itself (not just driving or cycling in traffic) would be impossible.

Like HH has said before and like I've seen as well, riding in the lane and moving aside for faster traffic does not provoke anyone...except for that one guy with the handgun that I had words with, because I was riding in the lane on an arterial. :rolleyes: Maybe you just don't have as many meth & crack addicts down there. And weren't you just telling me you periodically get honked at? Why do you think you're getting honked at?

I get enough of a double-take by just riding a bike around here :)...when you're actually seen. Make yourself more see-able, that's my 2¢ worth. Don't let that L&M Arc hit the 3-year battery-deterioration wall without getting your moneys' worth. Fire that puppy up.

But I've given plenty of reasons for why I prefer not to ride in the shoulder the whole time. You seem to want to ignore all of those points and simply focus on the fact that at night you can be seen easily in the shoulder with a lot of active lighting.Not really. I keep saying "sure, if you actually need to take the lane for a real reason, then take it." And if you just need to not ride the shoulder, you may be able to ride in the lane without taking the whole thing. There's no stigma in using just three feet of the lane instead of riding in the center of it, and going predictably down the road in that position. Incidentally, when you're doing your POWERWEAVING, are you signalling your lane changes?

The law of diminishing returns doesn't mean that an extra light doesn't get you anything. Under normal conditions, I do think a reflector alone can provide plenty of visibility for a cyclist at night. I've seen plenty of cyclists riding this way and have never have a problem spotting them from behind at least. Riding on higher speed roadways I can see the benefit that active lighting offers in being noticed earlier. There is also a benefit during fog, heavy rain, and snow to running active lighting. I see these conditions with enough regularity that I want to always be prepared for them. I think the statements that Helmet Head has made are sufficient, especially since it simply refers to nighttime. Do you disagree that the difference between nothing and a single red reflector at night is not huge?I do disagree. It's a hit-&-miss solution to safety, and there are real-world situations where it's not going to do squat.

I take it you read my recent night-ride thread or at least looked at the photos. If all I had was a red reflector out there, I might as well have nothing and be done with it, because there are driveway markers out there with literally >10x better reflectors than your basic CPSC bike reflector (I'll take a photo of one next time I'm out). Almost no one driving in that environment is going to see a tiny red speck basically stationary in their field of view, and go "oh, a cyclist, am I giving him enough room?" And even under ideal conditions, with good eyesight, I'm not satisfied with the range at which a dinky CPSC bike reflector begins to be noticable in low-beam headlights. When there's more reaction time, everyone benefits, and active lights give you more detection distance and thus more reaction time.

Then there's the further reality of motorists with a burned-out driver's-side headlight (think how many cars you see with a light out), drivers who sit way above their headlights and get close-range fadeout (trucks and busses), people driving with their headlights off for any number of reasons (saw this in a snowstorm in complete darkness, no logical reason), people with their lights aimed somewhere else (cars with front-end crash damage, headlights now aiming crazy directions), road users with no lights (pedestrians for example)... these are reasons that reflectors would appear dim or not appear at all, if that wasn't clear.

And that's all just assuming a reflector against a pitch-black countryside. In the city, I'd consider using just a red reflector in significant traffic to be basically suicidial. It simply isn't going to contrast enough against a backdrop of car taillights.

Active lights are better in good conditions, far better in bad conditions, they work whether the viewer has lights on or not, and the red LED blinkie is becoming a de facto visual signature of cyclists so people get the right idea and react accordingly. I haven't seen a driveway marker with a blinkie on it yet. ;) The blinking effect also (duh) catches the eye moreso than a steady light or reflector.

So nope, rear reflectors alone are off the radar as a meaningful safety solution. With blinkies as affordable as they are, that's the minimum that anyone deserves, and several models also have reflex reflectors built into them as well. And now you can buy ones that are visible in the daytime (actually it's been close to ten years now).

People posturing as safety "experts" should be interested in cyclist's safety, but a certain someone seems mainly interested in instigating a behavioral revolution, paying lip service to safety as a convenient excuse. IMO. The little "exponential growth" chart he posted... yep, that's the real game here. ;)

Incidentally, when you're doing your POWERWEAVING, are you signalling your lane changes?
Just like for any lateral change, when I move from the center to either tire track, or in or out of a shoulder, I always look back first, over the shoulder over which I plan to move, which often suffices more than adequately as an effective signal to others regarding my intent, but if there is any question, I use a hand signal.