What is VC?

[Helmet Head]

Two ssets of rules? This is what I was refering to when calling it a garbage concept.
No, if you understood two sets of rules I either explained something poorly, or you didn't reading something carefully, or both.

Let's forget what has been written so far, and start anew, shall we?

There are rules of the road for drivers of vehicles encoded as laws in jurisdictions around the world. While there are some differences from place to place, for the most part they are largely consistent. This is because they are all based on the same underlying principles.

Vehicular cycing is cycling on roads in accordance to the rules based on these same underlying principles. For the most part, this is the same as following the law for drivers of vehicles, including laws that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles, when applicable. It does not include obeying the letter of the law of laws that limit the rights of cyclists exclusively in contradiction to the rules of the road for drivers of all other vehicles.

Vehicular cycling also includes seeking to be treated by others as drivers of vehicles -- no better or worse, no differently.

Does this make sense?
Does this seem like a garbage concept to you?
Any other questions or comments?

[R-Wells]

I dont mean to add fuel to this debate.
Not being familiar with the idea of VC made me ask my self whether I new the local laws or not.
So I just got of the phone with the local Texas DPS office.
I had a very pleasant coversation with a Texas State Trooper, who just happened to be an avid cyclist.

Now I have a better understanding of the local laws and How I am expected to ride on local roads.

[sbhikes]

Where is there disagreement among vehicular cyclists as to how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles? Has anyone argued that a motorist need not respect the right of way of a cyclist who is operating according to vehicular rules under some scenario?
There is disagreement over whether or not it is a good use of resources to better educate drivers. There is also disagreement over whether or not bicyclists should (or can) somehow inject the belief that they are equal in status to motor vehicles into motor vehicle drivers with our riding style.

[joejack951]

In addition to the definition of "roadway" posted earlier, please read these other common rules of the road for operating a slow moving vehicle:

Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions.

Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

If you carefully read these rules of the road, you'll find the DLP method not only fits the letter of the law for vehicles, it goes above and beyond the courtesy required by law which allows you to let 5 vehicles stack up behind you before pulling over.

[Helmet Head]

There is disagreement over whether or not it is a good use of resources to better educate drivers.
Yeah, but I'm pretty much the lone wolf on that issue. It's not part of the VC debate. Certainly has nothing to do with what VC means.

[DrPete]

So, HH, I know you've dodged this question nicely in other forums, but can you explain how VC is going to save the cycling world if we all start riding in the traffic lane and the number of rear-ended cyclists skyrockets?

[The Human Car]

It’s really sad that bicycles have been around since the 1800’s and we still don’t have too many definitive answers on how to ride them safely. I believe NIH (or was it CDC ??) did a review of bicycle safety studies and in the conclusion was a statement to the effect that there was compiling evidence that VC improves cyclist’s safety but that is the strongest “official” language that I have found to date.

There is just too much road engineering, laws and public safety information based on what some people think and not on what is known or has been studied. For example for motor vehicle traffic it was thought that wider lanes would help allow for a greater margin of error and reduce accidents… well now there is evidence that these roads are actually more unsafe then the narrower lanes (the reason that is often stated is that wider roads encourage excessive speed which is more hazardous then lateral drift.) But the wider standard has been adopted and is still being constructed “for safety reasons.” The same type of non-thorough thinking and lack of proof by study is prevalent in bike safety and bike facility design and this needs to change.

My major battle locally is fighting the assumption that wrong way cycling is safest way to ride. The proponents say just look at the crash stats, cyclists need to be extra careful on the road so they should ride against traffic. My response is wrong way riding is the leading cause of crashes in the state and it has been proven that wrong way riding does not help in reducing accidents. Just because a significant number of people think something is safer does not make it safer.

[derath]

So, HH, I know you've dodged this question nicely in other forums, but can you explain how VC is going to save the cycling world if we all start riding in the traffic lane and the number of rear-ended cyclists skyrockets?


Dr. Pete,

Now I have to start off by saying, I enjoy your posts in the other forums. You seem like a nice guy and I still look forward to seeing you race someday. But I would not have expected to see you post something like this.

I have certainly never seen HH state that by riding VC you must forgo all other areas of the road (shoulder etc) and take up a lane whatever the circumstances and under penalty of death.

-D

[Helmet Head]

So, HH, I know you've dodged this question nicely in other forums, but can you explain how VC is going to save the cycling world if we all start riding in the traffic lane and the number of rear-ended cyclists skyrockets?
Right after you explain how your wife is better off the more you beat her.

Seriously, what kind of loaded question is that? IF cyclists all start riding in the traffic lane, and the number of rear-ended cyclists skyrockets, then of course I can't explain how VC is going to save the cycling world.

Of course, I reject the premise in your loaded question: that cyclists riding more often in the traffic lane (particularly in lanes too narrow to be safely shared, when approaching intersections where they are not turning right, and even in wide lanes when faster same direction is not present) will cause the number of rear-ended cyclists to skyrocket.

If you think rejecting a premise is "dodging the (loaded with an unaccepted premise) question", then I can't help you.

All I know is that I am aware of no evidence of a higher incidence of rear-ended cyclists among those who are more likely to control a vehicular traffic lane (LCIs, experienced club cyclists, etc.) than those who are not (children, "folk cyclists", etc.).

[genec]

There is disagreement over whether or not it is a good use of resources to better educate drivers. There is also disagreement over whether or not bicyclists should (or can) somehow inject the belief that they are equal in status to motor vehicles into motor vehicle drivers with our riding style.

Yeah, I know there is debate on it, but there is also quite a bit of statistical evidence to indicate that our motorists can do better... when compared with European motorists that DO have a more intensive driver education system.

Further, even the state of CA has realized it's amazingly easy test might not be in the best interest of all, and has therefore implemented a more difficult test and an even thicker driver handbook.

HH's opinion is that cyclists do best when focusing on the issues that directly effect them. And for a new or marginal cyclist, that is quite true, but looking at the deaths of experienced cyclists... such as Ken Kifer, it was the motorist that was the critical factor that needed some change... not the cyclist.

I personally believe that both motorist and cyclist alike in this country need to quit acting like the roads are their private playgrounds and learn how to drive/cycle friendly... learn how to treat each other as we expect to be treated.

[Bekologist]

I'm sorry, helmet head, but a vehicular bicyclist DOES NOT ignore a bike lane when it is safe and acceptable for use. a vehicular cyclist follows roadway striping rules and regulations and will use and take advantage of a bike lane stripe when it is a safe and acceptable.

your skew this crucial element of vehicular cycling into insignificance, yet knowing how to operate in a velotranist lane safely is actually a very important facet of riding VC on well accomodated roadways.

[Helmet Head]

HH's opinion is that cyclists do best when focusing on the issues that directly effect them. And for a new or marginal cyclist, that is quite true, but looking at the deaths of experienced cyclists... such as Ken Kifer, it was the motorist that was the critical factor that needed some change... not the cyclist.
Gene, when you write about someone else's opinion, try to get it right. In particular, try not to leave out key points.

A key aspect of my opinion that you missed is I believe cyclists should focus their very limited resources on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement. There is already a lot of effort focused in our culture to reduce the incidence of drunk driving - motorist behavior that tragically sometimes is a major factor in causing the death of cyclists like Ken Kifer. In fact, there is already so much effort expended on that in our society, that anything cyclists can add to it with our very limited resources is literally a drop in the bucket. It makes no sense to me to put precious resources towards a problem in which we probably can't make any significant difference in terms of reducing cyclist injury and death when we could be putting those resources towards problems where we should be able to make huge improvements in terms of reducing cyclist injury and death.


Anyway, this is way off topic so I'm not going to say anything else about it. If you or anyone else wants to start a new thread on this, I'll see you there.

[Helmet Head]

I'm sorry, helmet head, but a vehicular bicyclist DOES NOT ignore a bike lane when it is safe and acceptable for use. a vehicular cyclist follows roadway striping rules and regulations and will use and take advantage of a bike lane stripe when it is a safe and acceptable.

your skew this crucial element of vehicular cycling into insignificance, yet knowing how to operate in a velotranist lane safely is actually a very important facet of riding VC on well accomodated roadways.
Do you have any citations that support the definition of VC you are using here, or is this just your personal opinion?

John Forester and every LCI that I know teaches that bike lane STRIPES (not bike lanes) should be ignored by vehicular cyclists, and the demarcated space should be treated as if the STRIPE is not there. That doesn't mean vehicular cyclists should never ride to the right of a bike lane stripe - it means they should treat it the same as a shoulder (whether or not it is demarcated by a stripe), or the space to the right of a wide outside lane. If current conditions and factors dictate riding in that space, then ride there; if they don't, then don't. But the existence of the painted stripe should not be a factor in that decision (except perhaps to the extent that the stripe itself presents a hazard when wet and slippery).

That's not my opinion. That's not me skewing anything. That's how everyone I know who writes about and/or teaches vehicular cycling sees it, and conveys it.

[Bekologist]

knowing how to operate in a velotranist lane safely is a very important facet of riding VC on well accomodated roadways.

[Helmet Head]

knowing how to operate in a velotranist lane safely is a very important facet of riding VC on well accomodated roadways.
I'll mostly agree with that. The only caveat I have with agreeing fully with the statement is the characterization of surface street (non-freeway) roadways with space demarcated in order to segregate cyclists from all other vehicle drivers as being well accomodated.

[Bekologist]

sounds like a personal point of view, and not one that should minimize the importance of skill sets to utilize velotransit lanes by bicyclists as part of VC methodology.

It is of vital importance to understand, recognize and follow all sorts of roadway striping while using public roads. recognizing a bike lane that is safe to travel in is an important facet of riding VC.

[joejack951]

sounds like a personal point of view, and not one that should minimize the importance of skill sets to utilize velotransit lanes by bicyclists as part of VC methodology.

It is of vital importance to understand, recognize and follow all sorts of roadway striping while using public roads. recognizing a bike lane that is safe to travel in is an important facet of riding VC.

So would you agree that it is wrong (if not immoral) to market bike lanes in their entirety to novice cyclists as a particularly safe place to ride regardless of road/bike lane design?

[Geraldo]

For the most part (with few if any exceptions, none that I can't think of right now), they are the laws that govern the operation of vehicles on the roads, minus those laws that apply only to cyclists and contradict the laws that govern the operation of vehicles.


That is absurd.

[sbhikes]

Yeah, I know there is debate on it [whether or not it is a good use of resources to better educate drivers], but there is also quite a bit of statistical evidence to indicate that our motorists can do better... when compared with European motorists that DO have a more intensive driver education system.
I agree with you that it is a good use of resources. Others do not agree.

All this talk about whether you should keep right (stay to the right until something requires you to move left) or keep left (stay to the left until you are required to move right) is just disagreement on what constitutes defensive driving for bicycles.

[Helmet Head]

Okay, I've created a poll to see how many people agree or disagree with one particular definition of VC.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=229539

[sggoodri]

There is disagreement over whether or not it is a good use of resources to better educate drivers.

I am curious what the naysayer arguments are on this issue. Can you point me to a relevant thread? The lack of local drivers' awareness of the law and the willingness of many people to endanger people whom they think are acting unlawfully makes better driver education a very high-consensus issue among cyclists where I live.

[R-Wells]

I am curious what the naysayer arguments are on this issue. Can you point me to a relevant thread? The lack of local drivers' awareness of the law and the willingness of many people to endanger people whom they think are acting unlawfully makes better driver education a very high-consensus issue among cyclists where I live.
I tried to discuss better educating drivers , in the "Are Bicycles vehicles" thread.
I was called a fantasizing ideologue, anti bicyle, and that we couldnt do it because the robots would get us:)

[R-Wells]

It was the robots that made me give it up.
I have phobia about robots. they are really creepy to me:)

[sbhikes]

I am curious what the naysayer arguments are on this issue. Can you point me to a relevant thread? The lack of local drivers' awareness of the law and the willingness of many people to endanger people whom they think are acting unlawfully makes better driver education a very high-consensus issue among cyclists where I live.
It's difficult to find an exact post on the subject because the words to search on are too common, but it does come up from time-to-time whether or not we should waste any time discussing or advocating for higher standards for drivers of motor vehciles or simply focus on what we can do for ourselves as cyclists.

[DrPete]

Right after you explain how your wife is better off the more you beat her.

Seriously, what kind of loaded question is that? IF cyclists all start riding in the traffic lane, and the number of rear-ended cyclists skyrockets, then of course I can't explain how VC is going to save the cycling world.

Of course, I reject the premise in your loaded question: that cyclists riding more often in the traffic lane (particularly in lanes too narrow to be safely shared, when approaching intersections where they are not turning right, and even in wide lanes when faster same direction is not present) will cause the number of rear-ended cyclists to skyrocket.

If you think rejecting a premise is "dodging the (loaded with an unaccepted premise) question", then I can't help you.

All I know is that I am aware of no evidence of a higher incidence of rear-ended cyclists among those who are more likely to control a vehicular traffic lane (LCIs, experienced club cyclists, etc.) than those who are not (children, "folk cyclists", etc.).

OK, you're right, loaded question. I apologize.

I just think you've latched onto one concept a little too fervently, and I also think it's irresponsible of you to so vehemently advocate the practice when you have no idea if it's going to lead to more cyclists getting hurt/killed. We all know what you believe, but it's easy to advocate something when you have no personal responsibility for the outcome if it all goes awry.

For instance, in the "logging truck" thread, you mention that you really don't have any criteria for when to give up the lane to a large passing vehicle, you just go by feel. That alone is insufficient. If you're going to be such a champion of this concept and encourage everyone to ride all-VC, all the time, you should really be able to define the specifics better, for the sake of the safety of the newbies on this forum.

[tomcryar]

Especially, define, in terms everyone can understand, why you think there is a difference between the laws of VC and the laws of the road. I think they're one and the same, but apparently there are some who believe that there are "subtle" differences, and I would like to know how they are different. HH, please don't bother to respond, I'm asking other people. If you want to, you can pm me with your response (I am not a closed mind person). We can say everything in email. let's let others argue personally.

[tomcryar]

Half-time's over, gotta go.........go Steelers!

[joejack951]

Especially, define, in terms everyone can understand, why you think there is a difference between the laws of VC and the laws of the road. I think they're one and the same, but apparently there are some who believe that there are "subtle" differences, and I would like to know how they are different. HH, please don't bother to respond, I'm asking other people. If you want to, you can pm me with your response (I am not a closed mind person). We can say everything in email. let's let others argue personally.

Laws which require cyclists to use a bike lane or sidepath are laws of the road that go against vehicular cycling principles. There is a subtle difference (to some, I think there's a huge difference) between simply saying that slow moving traffic should stay to the right where applicable and saying that cyclists need to stay in the bike lane. Same goes for laws which restrict cyclists use of certain roadways (excluding interstates), making left turns in a vehicular fashions, and riding no more than two abreast laws.

[Bekologist]

i disagree, joejack. Vehicular cyclists have an important responsibility to use roadway space in acccordance to their legal and intended speeds, direction, signals, striping, etc. and that INCLUDES using velotransit lanes when they are acceptable and safe to use. NOT ignoring preferential travel lanes integrated with the roadbed for travel by bicyclists for no reason.

Ignoring properly laid roadway stripes is NOT vehicular cycling.

[Lot's Knife]

If anyone ever refers me to Wikipedia, I shall scream.

And geez, I gotta say, the last two posts distill my ongoing conflict about how I should ride.

Yeah, I'm given this dedicated four feet in which to ride.

But damned if I don't get 20 times more flats riding in it.

[genec]

Gene, when you write about someone else's opinion, try to get it right. In particular, try not to leave out key points.

A key aspect of my opinion that you missed is I believe cyclists should focus their very limited resources on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement.



Gee, I did say that... " HH's opinion is that cyclists do best when focusing on the issues that directly effect them."



There is already a lot of effort focused in our culture to reduce the incidence of drunk driving - motorist behavior that tragically sometimes is a major factor in causing the death of cyclists like Ken Kifer. In fact, there is already so much effort expended on that in our society, that anything cyclists can add to it with our very limited resources is literally a drop in the bucket. It makes no sense to me to put precious resources towards a problem in which we probably can't make any significant difference in terms of reducing cyclist injury and death when we could be putting those resources towards problems where we should be able to make huge improvements in terms of reducing cyclist injury and death.



I know you say this, but the evidence is pretty clear that drivers in America can be significantly improved... just by the fact that they kill about 45,000 of each other annually. And as I mentioned, even CA has made the driving test more difficult in a beginning effort to improve. This has nothing to do with Drunk Driving (although Kifer's death was due to a drunk driver) but more to do with the last factor left that experienced cyclist's face. If an experienced cyclist already does all the things that VC et. al. dictates, the one factor remaining is unpredictable drivers.

For instance, I never have problems with ordinary drivers... just the ones that chose to do extraordinary things... such as make right turns from center lanes, make left turns from right lanes, and those that don't seem to understand that I am right where I am supposed to be.



Anyway, this is way off topic so I'm not going to say anything else about it. If you or anyone else wants to start a new thread on this, I'll see you there.

Hardly off topic... consider that in order for VC to work, not only do cyclists have to be predictable, but so do those with whom we share the road.

[genec]

Do you have any citations that support the definition of VC you are using here, or is this just your personal opinion?

John Forester and every LCI that I know teaches that bike lane STRIPES (not bike lanes) should be ignored by vehicular cyclists, and the demarcated space should be treated as if the STRIPE is not there.

Really... I don't recall that from the LCI that I took Road 1 and 2 from... perhaps you heard just what you wanted to hear.

But I'll email and ask, just to be sure.

[sbhikes]

And here on this page we see people disagreeing on what constitutes "the roadway". Some believe that the bike lane or side path does not constitute the roadway and others do but neither disagree that following the law is something to which VC aspires.

We also see a disagreement over whether we ought to encourage motorists to take more responsibility for their driving or whether that's just a waste of our time.

[joejack951]

i disagree, joejack. Vehicular cyclists have an important responsibility to use roadway space in acccordance to their legal and intended speeds, direction, signals, striping, etc. and that INCLUDES using velotransit lanes when they are acceptable and safe to use. NOT ignoring preferential travel lanes integrated with the roadbed for travel by bicyclists for no reason.

Ignoring properly laid roadway stripes is NOT vehicular cycling.

Cyclists have the responsibility to use highway space (the space between the boundaries) designated for the purpose of slow moving vehicles (be that space a WOL, shoulder, or bike lane) just as much as other road users do, which is to say that they should use that space when there is faster same direction traffic and their presence in the roadway is causing a significant delay (quantified as 5 vehicles in some vehicle codes). As a responsible cyclist, I do not feel the need to only move once 5 vehicles are behind me, but move before even one vehicle is forced to slow significantly when there is sufficient space to do so. None of this goes against the vehicle code, unless said code irresponsibly forces cyclists to always bike lanes for which the only reasonable explanation is simply to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists by any means possible and everywhere possible. Vehicular cyclists have the responsibility to use the roadway (the space designated for normal vehicular traffic) just like any other vehicular user of the public highway.

Bypassing stopped traffic is something that should be done with extreme caution and is generally only advisable for experienced cyclists. Bike lanes, which are often promoted as means of educating novice cyclists, encourage this practice and discourage any sense of responsibility when performing this action due to the false sense of security they provide to some cyclists. I consider this far from preferential treatment and anti-vehicular cycling advocacy.

[Bekologist]

joejack,


ignoring a velotransit lane when it is safe and acceptable to ride in it is NOT vehicular cycling.

[genec]

I am curious what the naysayer arguments are on this issue. Can you point me to a relevant thread? The lack of local drivers' awareness of the law and the willingness of many people to endanger people whom they think are acting unlawfully makes better driver education a very high-consensus issue among cyclists where I live.

+10

[sggoodri]

It's difficult to find an exact post on the subject because the words to search on are too common, but it does come up from time-to-time whether or not we should waste any time discussing or advocating for higher standards for drivers of motor vehciles or simply focus on what we can do for ourselves as cyclists.

I see some very strong proponents of cyclist-education who do not wish to spend their own energy on promoting motorist-education. However, I cannot remember any road-using cyclist in the US saying that it's a waste of time to try to improve education of US motorists.

Note that even those cyclists who concentrate on cyclist education are partially motivated by the fact that the visibility of education programs promoting on-road cycling increases motorist awareness that bicycling in the roadway is legal and appropriate.

[joejack951]

joejack,


ignoring a velotransit lane when it is safe and acceptable to ride in it is NOT vehicular cycling.

Putting the undue burden on cyclists specifically to stay out of the way at all times, regardless of the presence of other traffic, is not vehicular and thus can not be part of vehicular cycling.

No other vehicle has specific "lanes" (due to the solid stripe on the left, a bike lane can hardly be considered a real traffic lane) meant to keep that vehicle and that vehicle only out of the way of faster same direction traffic.

[sbhikes]

Joe you are just arguing about whether or not you consider bike lanes to be part of the roadway. You belive they aren't. Others believe they are.

And Steve, Gene and Serge disagree pretty often on whether driver education is worthwhile.

[Helmet Head]

A key aspect of my opinion that you missed is I believe cyclists should focus their very limited resources on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement.

Gee, I did say that... " HH's opinion is that cyclists do best when focusing on the issues that directly effect them."

Gene, if you think "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" means "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", I don't know how we could ever hope to communciate. But I'll try one more time.

There are many problems that may directly affect someone. There are also many problems that may indirectly affect someone. Some of those they may be able to do something about, about others they may be relatively powerless. My point is that you should focus on solving those problems, be they direct or indirect, witch which you can realistically make a significant improvement.

I know you say this, but the evidence is pretty clear that drivers in America can be significantly improved...
Let's see.

just by the fact that they kill about 45,000 of each other annually.
You are confusing the magnitude of a problem with the realistic ability to do something significant about the problem. The fact that they kill about 45,000 each year is not evidence that cyclists make realistically make a significant difference in reducing that number, or the few hundred of the 45,000 that happen to be cyclists.

even CA has made the driving test more difficult in a beginning effort to improve.
And what do cyclists have to do with that? Again, this is not evidence that CYCLISTS can REALISTICALLY make a SIGNIFICANT difference in this area by spending our resources here instead of elsewhere.

Hardly off topic... consider that in order for VC to work,
This thread is not about whether VC can or does work. This topic is about what VC is (whether it works or not is off topic).

By the way, you're right about your LCI instructor. I forgot. I retract that statement. Most LCIs that I know teach that BL stripes should be ignored...

[tomcryar]

Putting the undue burden on cyclists specifically to stay out of the way at all times, regardless of the presence of other traffic, is not vehicular and thus can not be part of vehicular cycling.

No other vehicle has specific "lanes" (due to the solid stripe on the left, a bike lane can hardly be considered a real traffic lane) meant to keep that vehicle and that vehicle only out of the way of faster same direction traffic.


ALL vehicles have "specific" lanes.

[remsav]

So, HH, I know you've dodged this question nicely in other forums, but can you explain how VC is going to save the cycling world if we all start riding in the traffic lane and the number of rear-ended cyclists skyrockets?

Because the few studies done on motorcycle accidents show that they have the same problems with visibility in the traffic lanes so riding in the center of the lane will not stop being run over or getting t-boned. Around 70% is losing control with no other vehicle, so 4400 x .70 .. around 1200 deaths minus other factors and we get around 500 death by rear-ended.

" The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

Furthermore:

Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

A recent New Zealand study also agreed:

Fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights may reduce motorcycle injuries and death. Wells and colleagues (p 857) analysed 463 motorcycle drivers admitted to hospital following a road traffic incident and 1233 other drivers (control group) to evaluate how wearing conspicuous attire affected the risk of having an accident. They found that with reflective or fluorescent clothing the risk of a crash injury was reduced by 37%, with a white helmet by 24%, and with headlights by 27%.[1]

Unfortunately there are other causes too, such as cars losing control, bad driver behaviour and motorists falling asleep/taken ill and unconsious drivers. Deadman's braking and vigilance control can help.

In the UK, road accident investigators discovered that up to 70% of motorcycle accidents were rider error[citation needed], and didn't initially involve another vehicle. The majority of these accidents happened on left hand bends. Riders were found to be travelling beyond their ability going into the corner, and lost their confidence half way through the corner. The result was that they panicked, grabbed the front brake, and this would force the bike to alter course, causing an accident. In the majority of these accidents, it was found that had they not panicked, the bike would have negotiated the corner successfully.

There is also research currently being carried out into the accident style known as "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you!" (a.k.a SMIDSY). This is where cars, usually in a built up area, will pull out in front of bikers. This is most common during times of poor light. Initial findings are that the human eye is unable to see movement while it is coming straight at them. They cannot accurately calculate speed, and so ignore the information collected by their eyes.

Another factor is many motorist's failure to acknowledge road users smaller than themselves, due to the perception they will be better off in a collision. This may be a function of poor attitude, or insufficient training and regard for all road users."

[Blue Order]

No other vehicle has specific "lanes" (due to the solid stripe on the left, a bike lane can hardly be considered a real traffic lane) meant to keep that vehicle and that vehicle only out of the way of faster same direction traffic.Sorry, I don't mean to insult you with this post, but those are weasel words. Motor vehicles have specific lanes that they are required to use, and they are kept out of other areas of the highway: They're prohibited from using the bicycle lanes, the sidewalk, and the "third lane" (except to turn). It's a disingenuous manipulation of language-- probably traceable to Forrester, rather than to you-- to make it seem like bicycles alone bear the burden of staying in their lanes.

In fact, if you want to talk about vehicles being restricted to specific lanes to make way for faster moving vehicles, that restriction applies to motor vehicles as well. Slow-moving vehicles such as farm machinery are required by law to stay in the right lane; many, perhaps even most states, require motor vehicles to use the right lane unless they are passing another vehicle.

[sbhikes]

I ride a motorcycle too and can attest to the above matching my personal experience as well as everything I have heard discussed in my local enthusiast group where I've participated a few times. Motorcyclists hate drivers on cellphones, complain about SUVs, and bad drivers in general, and being left-hooked, and about their brethren getting run over just as much as bicyclists do.

[Blue Order]

Joe you are just arguing about whether or not you consider bike lanes to be part of the roadway. You belive they aren't. Others believe they are.It's not a subjective thing. The state Vehicle Codes define these things. The roadway is the area between the curbs or shoulders of the highway.

[genec]

Gene, if you think "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" means "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", I don't know how we could ever hope to communciate. But I'll try one more time.


Ever heard the phrase "more than one way to skin a cat?" There is more than one way to say the same thing. I honestly do not have to quote you word for word to get the same ideas across. Really.

[Helmet Head]

It's a disingenuous manipulation of language-- probably traceable to Forrester, rather than to you-- to make it seem like bicycles alone bear the burden of staying in their lanes.
Considering how often you refer to Forester, you might want to consider actually reading his books.

[patc]

Sorry, I don't mean to insult you with this post, but those are weasel words. Motor vehicles have specific lanes that they are required to use, and they are kept out of other areas of the highway: They're prohibited from using the bicycle lanes, the sidewalk, and the "third lane" (except to turn).

Plus you have bus-only lanes, HOV lanes, and a few other rare types, all designated by a solid stripe, diamond, and special marking. All are reserved lanes for specific types of vehicles (but don't REQUIRE those vehicles to use them.)

Amazing the lengths the anti-bike lane lobby will go to mis-represent the situation.

[Helmet Head]

Gene, if you think "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" means "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", I don't know how we could ever hope to communciate. But I'll try one more time.

Ever heard the phrase "more than one way to skin a cat?"

Of course. What is the relevance to whether the meanings of "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" and "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement" are the same? Are you implying they are different ways to skin the same cat? What would the "cat" be in this case? That's nonsense. More than one way to skin a cat means there is often more than one way to solve the same problem.

What we're talking about is NOT how to skin a cat, but WHICH cat is worth TRYING to skin.

There is more than one way to say the same thing.
Of course there is. But if you think "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" is another way to say "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", then you're still not understanding what I mean by "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", or I'm not understanding what you mean by, "focusing on the issues that directly effect them".

I honestly do not have to quote you word for word to get the same ideas across. Really.
But your words are not getting the same idea across. In fact, they're getting a very different one across, which is my point.

My words: "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement" means when you have many problems to choose to work on and limited resources; choose to focus your resources on the ones in which you can realistically make a significant improvement.

Your words: "focusing on the issues that directly effect them." From the context in which you originally wrote this, you clearly meant something entirely different from the above. I already explained this in #90, most of which you ignored. I'm not going to repeat it.

This is not a semantic argument. It's about whether cyclists using precious resources on trying to improve motorist behavior is a waste of resources or not. And it's about understanding that I'm not arguing it's a waste of resources because I don't think improving motorist behavior is important. I do. Of course I think it would be great if it was 40,000 or 20,000 instead of 45,000 per year. I'm all for reducing that number. But I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily follow from simply wanting that improvement that we should spend significant resources on it instead of using those resources elsewhere. And what should determine where those resources are spent, is not only whether we're directly affected or not (which of course we are by bad driver behavior), but whether the focus of those resources has any chance whatsover to affect the problem in any significant way. I'm sorry, but I think even if every cyclist hour and dollar was redirected to improving motorist behavior, we'd see NO significant change. None. Why? Well, because the amount of resources already spent on improving motorist behavior overwhelms ALL of the resources at our disposal. What we have total nationally is a drop in the bucket compared to any one state's DMV educational/training budget alone.

So if spending ALL of our resources on improving motorist behavior would produce nothing significant, why spend ANY resources on it? Just to "feel" like we tried? I'm sorry, but when those resources could instead be spent on something where we could make a difference in terms of reducing cyclist injuries and death, it makes much more sense to me to do that. No?

[K_V_B]

In fact, if you want to talk about vehicles being restricted to specific lanes to make way for faster moving vehicles, that restriction applies to motor vehicles as well.

Indeed. In a few places in the town where I live the slower moving moter vehicles (ie, all motor vehicles on those congested roads) are required to stay in their lane to make way for the faster moving vehicles. In this case bicycles. :)