Observations of daytime, static-lane positioning

[sbhikes]

Inspired by mechBgon's thread, I offer my own daytime, static-lane positioned photos.

Here I am riding my bike in a typical bike lane. Probably about half of all motorists moved over at least as far as this person did:
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/1.jpg


Of those who did not move over, I couldn't seem to work up much alarm over it. Someone please tell me why I should be afraid.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/2.jpg


The purpose of my bike ride was to go get some batteries. I loaded up my water and set off to the shopping center about 10 miles away. Naturally, I used the excellent bicycle facilities in my community. Here's a picture of the Obern trail. Note the solar-powered light and the sign indicating the name of my route and the number of miles to several points ahead. Bike paths are NOT a menace to cycling and they ARE very effective means of bicycle transportation.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/3.jpg


Another feature of adequate bike facilities is the ease of crossing the freeway they provide. I would much rather cross the freeway like this--under it--than over one of these hellish overpasses you see in many places. Take note also that it's really hard to get run over by a car under these circumstances. And the hoards of other users? What other users? Sunday afternoon on a perfect sunny day and I'm not experiencing any congestion on the bike path.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/4.jpg


What's so special about this traffic signal? Well, here I am, right biased and all alone and right after I took this picture the signal changed just for me.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/5.jpg

I'm still finding it really difficult to get all worked up about my supposed invisibility waaay way over here in the bike lane. Who knows why all these people keep passing me like this guy? Maybe they see me or maybe there's debris in their lane. Who really knows?
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/6.jpg


Here's the trailer park near where the 12 year old boy was killed riding his bike to school. Note the deterioration of the bike lane here, with all these cars parked on the side of the road. Some of them have their rear ends halfway into the bike lane. It is not bike lanes that are evil it is bad bike lanes that are evil and right here the bike lane is bad.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/7.jpg


Here's the memorial to Jake, the 12 year old boy. Note the bad bike lane conditions. He would have had to be left-biased in the bike lane or completely outside it.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/8.jpg


Here's the view from trike height. If the photo would have been better you might see how much dirt is in his wheel wells. Anyway, despite this being a rather narrow, busy street it still has a bike lane and people are still trying to ride as far away from me as they can.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/9.jpg


What does any of this prove? Maybe nothing. Maybe it simply provides some evidence that people can see you in the bike lane.

For daytime visibility, I have a reflective triangle on the back and an orange flag and wear a lime high-vis vest. Perhaps my pictures prove that daytime visibility gear does a good job of making cyclists visible in the day time.

Perhaps motorists only pull out farther for me than for most of you because my bike is so unusual. I also carve a wider profile from straight on than upright bikes. But I'm much lower, too. So maybe my pictures are just evidence that being unusual helps provide visibility. In any case, I certainly wasn't invisible in my static, right-biased position.

I hope that I've provided some visual evidence to refute some of the theoretical nonsense bandied about around here.

[mechBgon]

NICE, wow, trikes are an awesome platform for on-the-roll photography. That's my general experience too, when I ride in a bikes-only lane I have plenty of space. It's still smart to watch for potential right-hooks, but that holds true whenever I'm not taking the whole lane. LOL, I recall an incident last year when a driver passed me while I was in the bike lane, was a safe distance ahead, but didn't want to make her right turn for fear of right-hooking me. She stopped. The cars behind her stopped. *I* stopped in the bike lane, and waved go on, you're fine and she completed her turn. +1 for HID headlights.

I like how they put a center marker on the MUP... do people generally abide by it? Oh, and was this done with creamy or crunchy? :p

[lsits]

Interesting. What time of day were the above pictures taken as opposed to when the 12-year old was hit? I usually have no problem being seen when the sun is high in the sky. It's near sunrise and sunset when drivers have the sun in their eyes when people get too close to me.

Another thing, Did you have a peanut butter sandwich with you? Creamy or crunchy? :)

[2manybikes]

NICE, Oh, and was this done with creamy or crunchy? :p

Neither, a lighthouse light. :D

[mechBgon]

(edited my first post to get those pics working :))

[sbhikes]

How did you get the pictures to work? I couldn't do it. At least you can see them now.

To answer the questions I was riding at about 1pm and the little boy was riding at about 8am due east into the sun.

And yes, the trike is a great photography platform. I actually mounted my camera with a tiny, strap-on monopod and took the photos while moving. That's why they are kinda crooked and blurry.

And I didn't have a peanut butter sandwich. If I would have, it wouldn't have mattered whether it was cruncy or creamy, only that it was either a) all natural, unsalted peanut butter or b) almond butter.

I did have a Clif bar, but it wasn't peanut butter. It was black cherry almond.

[sbhikes]

Oh, and P.S. yes the lane markings on the bike path are obeyed. This is a BIKE path. Also known as a bikeway. As you can see there are street signs indicating destinations and milages. The purpose of this bikeway is to move bike traffic. Therefore, following the norm in the US, you ride in the right lane.

It was a quiet day on the bike path. I only saw a few walkers, and most of them did not walk on the bikeway. It is not a recreational facility. Its primary purpose is as a highway for bicycle traffic going to UCSB, but as you can see, there are other connecting bikeways and I was able to get all the way from my house to the shopping center using these bikeways and residential streets, making for a very pleasant, enjoyable and SAFE utilitarian ride.

[mechBgon]

How did you get the pictures to work? I couldn't do it. At least you can see them now.I converted them to .jpg format and uploaded them to the space that BF member tsl is letting me use :) If you want, just hit Reply With Quote to my next post below, and then copy the contents of the window, and paste it into your original post and remove the {QUOTE} tags. Or change your links to use the IMG tag and the URLs I used.

[mechBgon]

.
:)

[sbhikes]

Thanks mech! You can delete your post and I guess your quoted one above, too!

[mechBgon]

Done and done :) That's cool how it's actually a bicycle highway there, that goes to useful places instead of just wherever they could find room.

[sam83]

I have no experience with these bike lanes, but looks okay to me. I would not feel invisible, but I would worry about right hooks from people using poor judgement and left turners not looking beyond oncoming motor vehicle lanes. Valid concerns? I'd have to defer to regular users.

[Helmet Head]

Nice work. Thank you.

However, even if you could prove 95% of the drivers approaching you from behind are cognitively aware of your presence, what about the 5% (or whatever it is... I personally believe it is often probably close to 50%) that is not? As we've seen all too many times (see the bike lane deaths thread), it takes only one of those to decide, mistakenly thinking the road ahead is clear, to attend to a distraction at just the wrong time, and inadvertently drift across the bike lane stripe...

[mechBgon]

Yeah Diane, how often are you getting run over by those drifting ones?

(;))

[Cyclaholic]

Nice work. Thank you.

However, even if you could prove 95% of the drivers approaching you from behind are cognitively aware of your presence, what about the 5% (or whatever it is... I personally believe it is often probably close to 50%) that is not? As we've seen all too many times (see the bike lane deaths thread), it takes only one of those to decide, mistakenly thinking the road ahead is clear, to attend to a distraction at just the wrong time, and inadvertently drift across the bike lane stripe...

What about the drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol, what about those that are unlicensed becaus ethey're either incompetent or criminal but still drive? The point is that they are just as likely to hit you irrespective of their cognitive awareness of your presence. Lots of 'what ifs' there, that's why segregated bicycle highways just like the fine example Diane showed us are the best answer, with segregated bike lanes being the next best thing.

[damnable]

Maybe they are just scared of you.

[San Rensho]

Oh, and P.S. yes the lane markings on the bike path are obeyed. This is a BIKE path. Also known as a bikeway. As you can see there are street signs indicating destinations and milages. The purpose of this bikeway is to move bike traffic. Therefore, following the norm in the US, you ride in the right lane.

It was a quiet day on the bike path. I only saw a few walkers, and most of them did not walk on the bikeway. It is not a recreational facility. Its primary purpose is as a highway for bicycle traffic going to UCSB, but as you can see, there are other connecting bikeways and I was able to get all the way from my house to the shopping center using these bikeways and residential streets, making for a very pleasant, enjoyable and SAFE utilitarian ride.

Whats the average car traffic speed (not the speed limit) on the roads with bike paths? Looks to me like its safe ride exclusively on the bike paths, except at intersections, where I would take the lane or move to the left of the lane to let right-turning cars go by.

[sggoodri]

Most of these pictures featuring bike lanes or wide paved shoulders are of major roads with wide pavement and few intersections or driveways. These roads have few intersection issues and so there is little reason to operate closer to the stream of motor traffic from a traffic safety perspective. The only reason I sometimes operate in the travel lane on such roads between intersections is when the shoulder is full of debris.

Roads with lots of junction traffic, or narrow pavement, are where I find it most useful to operate farther left purely for traffic safety.

The bottom pictures of the debris-filled bike lane next to parked cars is the type of situation where I most dislike the bike-lane pavement markings, because they marginalize the cyclists who stay farther left for safety, which is clearly important here due to sand, door hazards, and sight line issues.

[sbhikes]

There are not many intersections with streets on that bike path. I don't see how you can "take the lane" at an intersection with the bike path. You are on the bike path!

If you mean the bike lanes, take another look and tell me how many of those photos show any place where there is an intersection? For the most part, I rode up against a fence for miles at a time. Nobody was turning anywhere. The speed limit was 35-45.

The last picture is of the downtown area where there is shopping on both sides of the street and lots of intersections and driveways, and lots of traffic. 35 mph. I still did not take the lane. I don't see the practice as having much use to me. Sorry. I even saw another trike on the other side of the street right after I took the picture and he wasn't taking the lane either. Neither were any of the dozens of other cyclists I saw that day. I never see anybody taking the lane. If a practice has no practitioners then perhaps people just don't see any value in it.

[joejack951]

What did you do about the sandy bike lane next to the memorial? Did you take the lane there or ride through the debris?

[derath]

A couple of observations and questions.

First off, maybe it is just semantics, but I don't see any Bike Lanes. I see alot of pictures of a shoulder though. IMO a shoulder with a bicycle painted on it is still a shoulder.

Someone please tell me why I should be afraid.

I don't know if anyone is saying you should. But the more apt question would be

"If, depending on traffic etc, I wanted to take the lane, why should I be lambasted for it?"

You are darn lucky in that area. Dedicated Bike paths? Nice. The best we have out here are MUP which quite frankly I find more dangerous than the road.

Another thought. And a reason I often take the lane where I live (maybe I will try and take a camera sometime this week). On a trike you are infinitely more stable than a bicycle (maybe we should all get trikes). So some debris, such as sand in the shoulder should not prove a major hazard to you. But when I am moving along, especially on a downhill at speeds nearing 30mph, I don't want to be surprised with a sandy shoulder etc. Since the road is generally swept clean better than the shoulder I will take the lane when I can in these situations.

-D

[mechBgon]

In my area it's the autos themselves that do most of the de facto lane sweeping. I've found the city street department is surprisingly responsive, however... you might drop an email to them and say "hey, the bike lane has gravel on it, could you send a sweeper?"

[Helmet Head]

However, even if you could prove 95% of the drivers approaching you from behind are cognitively aware of your presence, what about the 5% (or whatever it is... I personally believe it is often probably close to 50%) that is not? As we've seen all too many times (see the bike lane deaths thread), it takes only one of those to decide, mistakenly thinking the road ahead is clear, to attend to a distraction at just the wrong time, and inadvertently drift across the bike lane stripe...

What about the drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol, what about those that are unlicensed because they're either incompetent or criminal but still drive?

They are probably more likely to fall into the group of drivers who are not cognitively aware of a cyclist up ahead in the bike lane.

The point is that they are just as likely to hit you irrespective of their cognitive awareness of your presence.
That's nonsense. Do you have any idea the meaning of "just as likely", or the carnage we would we have if these drivers truly were anywhere near "just as likely to hit you irrespective of their cognitive awareness of your presence."?


Lots of 'what ifs' there,

Where?

that's why segregated bicycle highways just like the fine example Diane showed us are the best answer,
Segregated "bicycle highways" are the best answer to what? How to avoid bike crashes? Perhaps where they can actually be built on a separate plane from highways used by motor vehicles, like the one in Diane's picture, but it is practically impossible to do that in most places.

with segregated bike lanes being the next best thing.
Since segregated bike lanes don't even separate cyclists from same-direction traffic (anyone can drift across a painted stripe), and the main cause of bike crashes are crossing movements anyway, for which bike lanes provide no protection whatsoever, and arguably increase risk because they encourage cyclists to ride where many motorists are not paying attention, I don't see how bike lanes are even related to bike highways, much less are "the next best thing".

[sbhikes]

I rode through the debris. I have a trike. I don't have to worry about sand. I was taking pictures and stopping.

[sbhikes]

As far as the sand being on that road, that was the only debris-filled spot on my whole ride.

[mechBgon]

I sent an email to the SB street department, let's see if they send a sweeper out :)

[Helmet Head]

It is not bike lanes that are evil it is bad bike lanes that are evil and right here the bike lane is bad.
But what makes that bike lane bad? Debris. Debris that can fall onto the roadway anywhere, and be swept by motor traffic into whatever shoulder or bike lane happens to be there. Where that happens is determined by... chance.

So the difference between a good bike lane and an evil bike lane is chance?

[sam83]

I rode through the debris. I have a trike. I don't have to worry about sand. I was taking pictures and stopping.

I don't think most of us have trikes. How would your experience have differed on a skinny-tired two-wheeler?

[sbhikes]

Well, as I sped up I rode left biased in the bike lane so that none of my wheels were in the sand. That meant my left wheel was just outside the white line. If I would have been on a two-wheeler I would have ridden left-biased in the bike lane as well. There was about a foot of space, afterall.

I'm not sure if that exact spot was where the accident actually happened, though. In the picture I have of all the cards and flowers there is a car up ahead and it is about right where the car is that there are forensic paint marks where they circled blood spots and other things in the road from the accident. The paint is all over the road, and most of it is in the middle of the lane.

[vrkelley]

...I'm guessing the DLLP crowd is going to rise to meet this new challenge???

[mechBgon]

I don't think most of us have trikes. How would your experience have differed on a skinny-tired two-wheeler?Not to speak for her, but as for myself, I've ridden road-racing bikes on plenty of dirt and gravel roads. That bike lane's far from unridable with a road-racer. My touring bike would barely notice it with the Pasela 700 x 35's, and my mountain bike/winter commuter would be right at home.

Granted, gravel on pavement isn't optimal, but it pales in comparison to what else you could find in your bike lane... ;) one of mech's commutes from last winter (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/commute/index.html)

Sample pic:

http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/commute/hangman2.jpg
this should put things into perspective...

I could see the gravel as an issue in the event you needed to brake hard or steer sharply, though. Let's see if they send out a sweeper to do some maintenance.

[sam83]

I've noticed that our own skills, experiences and local riding conditons frame our reactions when communicating in the WWW thing. I find it interesting how the type of bike one rides shapes one's perspectives too. They (different bikes) react differently to the environment and we react differently to them.

[Wogsterca]

Nice work. Thank you.

However, even if you could prove 95% of the drivers approaching you from behind are cognitively aware of your presence, what about the 5% (or whatever it is... I personally believe it is often probably close to 50%) that is not? As we've seen all too many times (see the bike lane deaths thread), it takes only one of those to decide, mistakenly thinking the road ahead is clear, to attend to a distraction at just the wrong time, and inadvertently drift across the bike lane stripe...

On many highways, they make use of rumble strips, a rumble strip between the MV lanes and bike lanes, could easily let drifters know that they are encroaching on someone elses space. Yes they are a pain if you need to use the MV lane for some reason, but it's short term pain, for less long tern pain. Would not be needed everywhere, just where this is a potential problem.

[sbhikes]

However, even if you could prove 95% of the drivers approaching you from behind are cognitively aware of your presence, what about the 5% (or whatever it is... I personally believe it is often probably close to 50%) that is not?
What about 'em? I don't see 50% or even 5% or even .01% of the drivers constantly careering off course into the shoulder. My experience shows that I'm not invisible to people when I'm in the bike lane. Holding your line and being predictable in a bike lane is much safer than weaving in and out of it. Visibility equipment does a better job of making you seen than weaving around the roads. Maintain your predictability and don't cause confusion.

[Helmet Head]

What about 'em? I don't see 50% or even 5% or even .01% of the drivers constantly careering off course into the shoulder.
I didn't say 50% or 5% or .01% are careening off course. I said I believe about 50% are not aware of your presence. It's the bike lane or shoulder stripe that keeps them in their lane, not your presence. But, even if it's only 5% that is not aware of your presence as they are approaching you, if only one of them inadvertently drifts... see the bike lane deaths thread.

My experience shows that I'm not invisible to people when I'm in the bike lane.
What in your experience tells you that overtaking motorists have noticed you?

Holding your line and being predictable in a bike lane is much safer than weaving in and out of it.
No one is talking about "weaving in and out of a bike lane", words that conjure an image of a cyclist moving in and out of a bike lane every few feet. You're not taking this seriously.

Visibility equipment does a better job of making you seen than weaving around the roads. Maintain your predictability and don't cause confusion.
DLLP IS predictability and does not cause confusion.

The four stages of DLLP are:


Cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a traffic lane (while faster same-direction traffic is absent, or approaching, though still more than 10 seconds back - at a 30 mph/44 fps closing speed that's more than 440 feet).
When faster same-direction traffic is 5-10 seconds back (depending on conditions), cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a traffic lane, looking back over his or her right shoulder, then predictably and smoothly changing lanes into a bike lane or shoulder (all of which is done in a second or two).
Cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a bike lane or shoulder (while faster same-direction traffic is passing him or her).
Cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a bike lane or shoulder, looking back over his or her left shoulder to verify he has the right-of-way, then predictably and smoothly changing lanes into the main traffic lane. Go to Stage 1.


Behavior in each of the DLLP stages is predictable and does not cause confusion. Put them all together into a general methodology and you still have nothing that is unpredictable, or causes confusion, or could plausibly be referred to as "weaving".

[SingingSabre]

<snipped out irrelevant crap>

DLLP IS predictability and does not cause confusion.

The four stages of DLLP are:


Cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a traffic lane (while faster same-direction traffic is absent, or approaching, though still more than 10 seconds back - at a 30 mph/44 fps closing speed that's more than 440 feet).
When faster same-direction traffic is 5-10 seconds back (depending on conditions), cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a traffic lane, looking back over his or her right shoulder, then predictably and smoothly changing lanes into a bike lane or shoulder (all of which is done in a second or two).
Cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a bike lane or shoulder (while faster same-direction traffic is passing him or her).
Cyclist is maintaining a straight course in a bike lane or shoulder, looking back over his or her left shoulder to verify he has the right-of-way, then predictably and smoothly changing lanes into the main traffic lane. Go to Stage 1.


Behavior in each of the DLLP stages is predictable and does not cause confusion. Put them all together into a general methodology and you still have nothing that is unpredictable, or causes confusion, or could plausibly be referred to as "weaving".

DLP isn't some 12 step program, Head. It's simply a theory on how you feel cyclists should ride. There aren't any "stages" nor are there any real world scenarios that prove how well it works. I honestly think you're just investing far more into this than you should actually be investing. Just to feed the troll, though:


Cyclists maintaining a straight path in a traffic lane usually do so due to debris in the bike lane or to a lack of a bike lane.
Checking one's mirror so frequently to make sure one isn't going to be hit by a car while travelling outside one's legally designated lane isn't good for watching one's surroundings. I know from experience. Painfully.
Maintaining a straight path of travel in one's legally designated lane while faster traffic is passing isn't DLP, DLLP, VC, TM, R, BS, NCBTMB, etc. It's just horse sense.
Going back into the traffic lane when not necessary and when traffic can see you is also not a good idea. It gives the impression (at least to my friends who've complained about people who like to alpha dog their way into streets with beautiful bike lanes and/or shoulders) that they're unpredictable and dangerous.
I can make pretty lists, too.

Behavior which leads you to taking a lane superfluously simply makes riding more dangerous.

[Helmet Head]

outside one's legally designated lane
A shoulder or bike lane is not a legally designated lane for anyone. Therefore riding outside of either a shoulder or bike lane is not being "outside one's legally designated lane".

A shoulder is not a lane at all.
A bike "lane" is not a legally designated lane either.
A cyclist in California is NEVER required to ride in a shoulder.
A cyclist in California is NEVER required to ride in a shoulder that is designated to be a bike "lane" when faster same-direction is not present.

Behavior which leads you to taking a lane superfluously simply makes riding more dangerous.
Tell that to the mourning families of the victims cited in the "bike lane deaths" thread.

[mechBgon]

Tell that to the mourning families of the victims cited in the "bike lane deaths" thread.Shall I ask a moderator to rename it the "inadequate-visibility-equipment deaths" thread? We can all twist facts to fit our own viewpoints if we want to, you know... ;)

[Helmet Head]

Shall I ask a moderator to rename it the "inadequate-visibility-equipment deaths" thread? We can all twist facts to fit our own viewpoints if we want to, you know... ;)
It may be true that increasing sensory cognitivity with lights may have helped in some or even all of these cases. I don't know. But, it seems to me that the increase in sensory cognitivity achieved by lights during the day in normal conditions is relatively marginal. That's the difference between sensory and cognitive conspicuity. The ability to clearly see an object is often not sufficient to make one cognitively aware of that object - that is the nature of inattentional blindness. Note the number of emergency vehicles with lights flashing stopped in shoulders that are never-the-less crashed into. One British study shows that increasing their sensory conspicuity made them more likely to be hit.

In any case, all other factors held constant (including sensory conspicuity as determined by clothing, lights, etc.) any potential obstacle up ahead that is outside of a driver's intended path off to the side in a bike lane or shoulder will be less relevant than the same potential obstacle in the drivers' intended path, and, therefore, must be more susceptible to inattentional blindness.

[sbhikes]

I suppose all those motorcycle drivers killed in car accidents should have been taking the lane to prevent their accidents. Oh wait. They were.

[mechBgon]

In any case, all other factors held constant (including sensory conspicuity as determined by clothing, lights, etc.) any potential obstacle up ahead that is outside of a driver's intended path off to the side in a bike lane or shoulder will be less relevant than the same potential obstacle in the drivers' intended path, and, therefore, must be more susceptible to inattentional blindness.LOL, he's making stuff up again :D Keep digging...

[sbhikes]

So, after you grab the driver's attention with your visibility gear, you then re-lose it again when he says to himself, "Ah ha! That guy's not in my path. I will now forget I ever saw him." Whereas, when you are in his path, and then move over out of his path, he does not? That really doesn't make any sense.

[mechBgon]

So, after you grab the driver's attention with your visibility gear, you then re-lose it again when he says to himself, "Ah ha! That guy's not in my path. I will now forget I ever saw him." Whereas, when you are in his path, and then move over out of his path, he does not? That really doesn't make any sense.See, but he'll deny that you ever got the driver's attention in the first place, since you were on the shoulder, and therefore "irrelevant" no matter how much visibility equipment you have. Which does not seem to hold up well to my recent testing in the real world. ;) Or yours, for that matter.


Check.

[Helmet Head]

In any case, all other factors held constant (including sensory conspicuity as determined by clothing, lights, etc.) any potential obstacle up ahead that is outside of a driver's intended path off to the side in a bike lane or shoulder will be less relevant than the same potential obstacle in the drivers' intended path, and, therefore, must be more susceptible to inattentional blindness.

LOL, he's making stuff up again :D Keep digging...
Making stuff up?

Let's say you're driving down a road at 55 mph and you see up ahead that there is a shredded tire in the road. Are you saying the shredded tire is just as relevant to you if it's in the shoulder out of your way than if it's in your lane in your intended path?

If so, then I'd say you're not aware of how much more attention you give to potential obstacles in your intended path than you do to potential obstacles in the shoulder (which, arguably, are hardly even "potential obstacles" due to their out of the way location), or you're not a very good driver.

[Helmet Head]

I suppose all those motorcycle drivers killed in car accidents should have been taking the lane to prevent their accidents. Oh wait. They were.
That might be relevant if someone was claiming that all bike-car collisions could be prevented by cyclists taking the lane.

But no one has claimed that, so your comment is not relevant.

[Helmet Head]

So, after you grab the driver's attention with your visibility gear, you then re-lose it again when he says to himself, "Ah ha! That guy's not in my path. I will now forget I ever saw him." Whereas, when you are in his path, and then move over out of his path, he does not? That really doesn't make any sense.
I hope you're playing stupid, because the alternative explanation for your comments is pathetic.

That's not how inattentional blindness works. Once something has your attention because of whatever reason, you don't immediately forget about it as soon as that reason no longer applies.

[mechBgon]

Once something has your attention because of whatever reason, you don't immediately forget about it as soon as that reason no longer applies.If that's true, then it's an excellent reason to do an end run around where the driver was looking, by making them look where you are. To quote myself from some more recent, real-world daytime road usage, this time as the driver:


Case in point: I just got back from driving to & from the dentist's office. Going up our backbone arterial, Division street, I was pondering the theory that drivers can't see everything. It's a 6-lane arterial with a zillion cross streets, nonstop center-turn islands and some RTO lanes.

And just as I was thinking that, what cuts through the clutter and catches my eye through all the traffic? A strobe light. :) I looked at my odometer and reeled off the distance to the strobe light. It was about 3/4 of a mile away, and was nothing special... just a run-of-the-mill rotary high-intensity strobe. I had covered most of the distance before I could see what it was attached to: a cube van.

On my way home, I had popped over the rise on 29th and what should catch my eye? A strobe light. :) I wasn't planning to go that far, but I drove down 29th to get the distance measured. It was about 1/2 mile away. As I got closer, I saw it was a white truck about the size of a normal UPS truck. This one was a double-flash Xenon one like this:

http://www.eccolink.com/media/productshots/6995.jpg

I turned around to get home. Coming back up the grade, it struck me how much more visible cars were that had DRLs or had their headlights on. Gee. If motorists can't see everything, make sure you're the thing they CAN see.

If a 3-inch-by-6-inch strobe can be more visible than a large white delivery van, then put that effect to work for yourselves too. Daytime-visible taillights are now available from $10.99 to $20, they're not an $89 specialty product requiring a $350 NiteRider light system like they were 10 years ago. I put one on a 4-year-old boy's bike the other day and his parents will be coaching him to turn it on whenever he rides. At least someone's making some progress in increasing cyclist safety...

Oh, and the SB street department is sending a sweeper. Right on, guys :beer:

[Helmet Head]

See, but he'll deny that you ever got the driver's attention in the first place, since you were on the shoulder, and therefore "irrelevant" no matter how much visibility equipment you have.
You're not necessarily "irrelevant" when you're in the shoulder. Relevance is a subjective assessment.

But, you are much less likely to be relevant to a driver if you're in the shoulder as compared to being in his intended path.

Which does not seem to hold up well to my recent testing in the real world. ;)
All your testing showed was that at night a "well lit" cyclist in the shoulder is more than likely to be noticed. This has never been denied, and revealed nothing new.

Or yours, for that matter.
The most Diane's testing showed was that it's extremely unlikely for a motorist to overlook a cyclist in the shoulder AND drifted into. No one denies this. But it does happen all too often, as shown by the tragedies referenced in the "bike lane deaths" thread.

Neither test provided any information whatsoever about the likelihood of a given driver being cognitively aware of a cyclist that he is overtaking in the shoulder during normal daylight conditions (granted this is difficult to ascertain).

[mechBgon]

But, you are much less likely to be relevant to a driver if you're in the shoulder as compared to being in his intended path.I don't think I'm the only one who views that as a made-up factoid by a guy trying to avoid final checkmate. See my post just above, post #47.

All your testing showed was that at night a "well lit" cyclist in the shoulder is more than likely to be noticed. This has never been denied, and revealed nothing new.wow, and he walks right into it... Then how come I can get the same result in the daytime on the same road, Helmet Head?



Check.

[Helmet Head]

Then how come I can get the same result in the daytime on the same road, Helmet Head?
Because you're using daytime visible lights. Duh.

But I'm still not convinced that you are as cognitively conspicuous, even with those lights, in the shoulder as you would be in the lane.