Laika
It's always interesting to hear a motorist's perspective on proper cycling techniques.
Using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drift collisions
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Brian Ratliff
Brian, if you are confusing inadvertent drift with a hit from behind accident, then you are completely missing the point.
THE main argument given by people on this board in opposition to HH's advice is that a cyclist "taking the lane for no reason" WILL get hit from behind by faster moving traffic. If you accept that, then you cannot accept vehicular cycling at all.
I am using the definitions from the historical studies which John Forester used to make his point that "taking the lane" is not a dangerous maneuver. Tell me, how is "inadvertent drift" different from a "hit from behind"? How else would a cyclist be "hit from behind" if not from "inadvertent drift" if they are riding to the right of the traffic stream?
My point is that "hit from behind" is extremely rare. It is the whole reason that VC works at all. It is the whole reason why when "taking the lane," motorists don't just run into the cyclist willy nilly. Now, I can believe that cyclists who are to the far right (like in the gutter pan, which is where cyclists tend to ride on WOLs, though, of course, they don't have to) will be likely overlooked by a motorist. This is why I ride next to the white line, just to the right or left (or on top) depending on conditions.
I like Robert Hurst's take on the issue. Unless you are in the gutter pan, wayyyyyyy off to the side, visibility from behind is not an issue. It is about sightlines for yourself and for motorists on sidestreets, and it is about space, whether putting buffers between you and cross traffic on the right, or physically keeping the motorist from squeezing you into a narrow spot. When I make my decisions about lane position, it is never about visibility from behind. It is always about visibility to motorists from the side, and space.
THE main argument given by people on this board in opposition to HH's advice is that a cyclist "taking the lane for no reason" WILL get hit from behind by faster moving traffic. If you accept that, then you cannot accept vehicular cycling at all.
I am using the definitions from the historical studies which John Forester used to make his point that "taking the lane" is not a dangerous maneuver. Tell me, how is "inadvertent drift" different from a "hit from behind"? How else would a cyclist be "hit from behind" if not from "inadvertent drift" if they are riding to the right of the traffic stream?
My point is that "hit from behind" is extremely rare. It is the whole reason that VC works at all. It is the whole reason why when "taking the lane," motorists don't just run into the cyclist willy nilly. Now, I can believe that cyclists who are to the far right (like in the gutter pan, which is where cyclists tend to ride on WOLs, though, of course, they don't have to) will be likely overlooked by a motorist. This is why I ride next to the white line, just to the right or left (or on top) depending on conditions.
I like Robert Hurst's take on the issue. Unless you are in the gutter pan, wayyyyyyy off to the side, visibility from behind is not an issue. It is about sightlines for yourself and for motorists on sidestreets, and it is about space, whether putting buffers between you and cross traffic on the right, or physically keeping the motorist from squeezing you into a narrow spot. When I make my decisions about lane position, it is never about visibility from behind. It is always about visibility to motorists from the side, and space.
Brian Ratliff
...
THE main argument given by people on this board in opposition to HH's advice is that a cyclist "taking the lane for no reason" WILL get hit from behind by faster moving traffic. If you accept that, then you cannot accept vehicular cycling at all.
Like SSP said, this is not the main reason given. Obviously, if you want to piss everyone off and just ride in the center of the lane, most people still won't run you over. Like you said, if you think that you WILL get run over from behind, then you cannot use vehicular cycling techniques. But most people here are arguing that you don't get anything out of HH's "DLLP" technique. Moreover, they are arguing that the philosophy and logic behind this "DLLP" technique is not sound, and if this technique is used, it is MORE LIKELY that something will go wrong and the cyclist, the motorist, or both will get into an accident.
THE main argument given by people on this board in opposition to HH's advice is that a cyclist "taking the lane for no reason" WILL get hit from behind by faster moving traffic. If you accept that, then you cannot accept vehicular cycling at all.
Like SSP said, this is not the main reason given. Obviously, if you want to piss everyone off and just ride in the center of the lane, most people still won't run you over. Like you said, if you think that you WILL get run over from behind, then you cannot use vehicular cycling techniques. But most people here are arguing that you don't get anything out of HH's "DLLP" technique. Moreover, they are arguing that the philosophy and logic behind this "DLLP" technique is not sound, and if this technique is used, it is MORE LIKELY that something will go wrong and the cyclist, the motorist, or both will get into an accident.
Brian Sorrell
+1
Well said. Brian, you should reveal your background on the matter of logical argument. Helmet Head is an amateur philosopher. Brian, I believe you are not quite, yes?
All I am saying is that HH's technique is something that works for him in certain situations he comes across. It is not a unified theory by any means. I have heard enough replies from other, experienced, cyclists, as well as my own experience, to know that this is not a technique to use everywhere. Sometimes "inadvertent drift" is not the main concern. Moreover, there are other techniques which solve the "inadvertent drift" problem without causing so many others.
Well, I don't usually reveal myself publicly, but indeed Mr. B. Ratliff, I am trained as a philosopher -- specialized in logic and reasoning in the context of what they call "ordinary language philosophy".
The technique outlined can be very useful, but there are times, at least in my city-traffic riding, where my sense of "holy sh!t these people are going to kill me" trumps said technique. Sometimes I ride on really busy and speedy roads in rush hour and, yes, the drivers see me, and no, they will not respect my right to the lane no matter how Dynamically I Laterally Position myself in the Lane.
Well said. Brian, you should reveal your background on the matter of logical argument. Helmet Head is an amateur philosopher. Brian, I believe you are not quite, yes?
All I am saying is that HH's technique is something that works for him in certain situations he comes across. It is not a unified theory by any means. I have heard enough replies from other, experienced, cyclists, as well as my own experience, to know that this is not a technique to use everywhere. Sometimes "inadvertent drift" is not the main concern. Moreover, there are other techniques which solve the "inadvertent drift" problem without causing so many others.
Well, I don't usually reveal myself publicly, but indeed Mr. B. Ratliff, I am trained as a philosopher -- specialized in logic and reasoning in the context of what they call "ordinary language philosophy".
The technique outlined can be very useful, but there are times, at least in my city-traffic riding, where my sense of "holy sh!t these people are going to kill me" trumps said technique. Sometimes I ride on really busy and speedy roads in rush hour and, yes, the drivers see me, and no, they will not respect my right to the lane no matter how Dynamically I Laterally Position myself in the Lane.
sbhikes
Why move left then? Move left to improve your own personal sight lines, and to create a buffer of space and time between yourself and inevitable intrusions from the right.
This is indeed the primary reason I will move left on roads with plenty of otherwise usable space to the right.
For making myself conspicuous I rely on visibility equipment. For controlling traffic behind me when I feel it is too unsafe for them to pass me, I use center lane positioning. Otherwise the only reason I see to move left is to avoid hazards to my right.
I don't need any logic exercises or a PhD in Philosophy. My system is all based on my own trial and error in the school of Experience.
This is indeed the primary reason I will move left on roads with plenty of otherwise usable space to the right.
For making myself conspicuous I rely on visibility equipment. For controlling traffic behind me when I feel it is too unsafe for them to pass me, I use center lane positioning. Otherwise the only reason I see to move left is to avoid hazards to my right.
I don't need any logic exercises or a PhD in Philosophy. My system is all based on my own trial and error in the school of Experience.
vrkelley
I'm on page 1 and don't really care to read page 2 (or page 3 if that was created while I was reading). I just wanted to post more lyrics from my song currently being polished and recorded (albeit amateurly), "The DLLP Rag."
Sorry but a bright rag may not fix this one.
Today I rode around in the car and did my own informal study. When an SUV, Hummer, or Truck was ahead of my car, there was next to no time to spot a bike or even a road sign.
Depending on terrain, I noticed:
25mph just 2.5 sec (to recognize and reach something in bike lane)
40mph just 5.0 sec
60mph just 12 sec
Notice that at faster speeds there's more time to see the bike/road sign because the cars are spaced further apart instead of bumper to bumper.
My conclusion (to this non-scientific study):
The problem is not ruralish at all. There is diffuculty seeing even road signs because large vehicles obstruct stuff in the bike lane and on the side of the road. Probably your only hope of not getting drifted is evasive manuevers after spotting them in a mirror.
Sorry but a bright rag may not fix this one.
Today I rode around in the car and did my own informal study. When an SUV, Hummer, or Truck was ahead of my car, there was next to no time to spot a bike or even a road sign.
Depending on terrain, I noticed:
25mph just 2.5 sec (to recognize and reach something in bike lane)
40mph just 5.0 sec
60mph just 12 sec
Notice that at faster speeds there's more time to see the bike/road sign because the cars are spaced further apart instead of bumper to bumper.
My conclusion (to this non-scientific study):
The problem is not ruralish at all. There is diffuculty seeing even road signs because large vehicles obstruct stuff in the bike lane and on the side of the road. Probably your only hope of not getting drifted is evasive manuevers after spotting them in a mirror.
SSP
Sorry but a bright rag may not fix this one.
Today I rode around in the car and did my own informal study. When an SUV, Hummer, or Truck was ahead of my car, there was next to no time to spot a bike or even a road sign.
Depending on terrain, I noticed:
25mph just 2.5 sec (to recognize and reach something in bike lane)
40mph just 5.0 sec
60mph just 12 sec
Notice that at faster speeds there's more time to see the bike/road sign because the cars are spaced further apart instead of bumper to bumper.
My conclusion (to this non-scientific study):
The problem is not ruralish at all. There is diffuculty seeing even road signs because large vehicles obstruct stuff in the bike lane and on the side of the road. Probably your only hope of not getting drifted is evasive manuevers after spotting them in a mirror.
I worry more about the 2nd or 3rd car in a "pack" than the first one (you know, the one driven by the tailgating 16-year old girl who's checking her makeup in the mirror as she tries to change the CD player just as her cell phone rings :eek: ).
When I notice a pack approaching from behind (via my mirror), I intentionally drift left to force the first car to move left. That (in theory) alterts the following drivers that there's something up ahead on the right that needs to be manuevered around.
Today I rode around in the car and did my own informal study. When an SUV, Hummer, or Truck was ahead of my car, there was next to no time to spot a bike or even a road sign.
Depending on terrain, I noticed:
25mph just 2.5 sec (to recognize and reach something in bike lane)
40mph just 5.0 sec
60mph just 12 sec
Notice that at faster speeds there's more time to see the bike/road sign because the cars are spaced further apart instead of bumper to bumper.
My conclusion (to this non-scientific study):
The problem is not ruralish at all. There is diffuculty seeing even road signs because large vehicles obstruct stuff in the bike lane and on the side of the road. Probably your only hope of not getting drifted is evasive manuevers after spotting them in a mirror.
I worry more about the 2nd or 3rd car in a "pack" than the first one (you know, the one driven by the tailgating 16-year old girl who's checking her makeup in the mirror as she tries to change the CD player just as her cell phone rings :eek: ).
When I notice a pack approaching from behind (via my mirror), I intentionally drift left to force the first car to move left. That (in theory) alterts the following drivers that there's something up ahead on the right that needs to be manuevered around.
John C. Ratliff
Helmet Head,
I have been away for a week on a business trip. Tonight, I read this new thread, and that you want to be challenged on the statements you posted here. Okay, here's your challenge:
FAQ
Why would you want to weave back and forth in and out of the lane like that? It's not weaving. The technique normally involves maintaining a given lateral position for at least 10 seconds, almost always much longer, before moving back to the other position.
1. In traffic doing 55 mph (which is normal here), in 10 seconds the vehicle will cover 806 feet. Are you able to see something 800 feet behind you? You also mentioned getting out of the way at 10 seconds. That's quite far behind. Is that enough space for the car to perceive you as in the lane?
3. Would you do this without a mirror? Only on quiet slow roads. On roads with fast traffic (35+ mph speed limits), I would not do it without a mirror.
Can you realistically perceive in a helmet mirror a car at 800 feet (~270 yards) away?
I have a few more stories to tell, but they'll have to wait until after supper. Suffice it to say that two reasons for people to drift off the lane are fatigue (sleepiness) and being drunk. Does your theory take into consideration either of these contingencies? I think you are assuming in your premises that the drivers are in a sufficiently alert state to perceive you.
John
I have been away for a week on a business trip. Tonight, I read this new thread, and that you want to be challenged on the statements you posted here. Okay, here's your challenge:
FAQ
Why would you want to weave back and forth in and out of the lane like that? It's not weaving. The technique normally involves maintaining a given lateral position for at least 10 seconds, almost always much longer, before moving back to the other position.
1. In traffic doing 55 mph (which is normal here), in 10 seconds the vehicle will cover 806 feet. Are you able to see something 800 feet behind you? You also mentioned getting out of the way at 10 seconds. That's quite far behind. Is that enough space for the car to perceive you as in the lane?
3. Would you do this without a mirror? Only on quiet slow roads. On roads with fast traffic (35+ mph speed limits), I would not do it without a mirror.
Can you realistically perceive in a helmet mirror a car at 800 feet (~270 yards) away?
I have a few more stories to tell, but they'll have to wait until after supper. Suffice it to say that two reasons for people to drift off the lane are fatigue (sleepiness) and being drunk. Does your theory take into consideration either of these contingencies? I think you are assuming in your premises that the drivers are in a sufficiently alert state to perceive you.
John
vrkelley
Adding to reasons for sudden bike-lane invasions:
* Preparing to turn right
* Swerving to avoid rear ending a car or hitting something in the car lane
* Swerving to avoid drift from on-coming (such as on a curve)
* Yielding to emergency vehicles
* Break down
* Preparing to turn right
* Swerving to avoid rear ending a car or hitting something in the car lane
* Swerving to avoid drift from on-coming (such as on a curve)
* Yielding to emergency vehicles
* Break down
John C. Ratliff
Last week, I bounced Helmet Head's ideas of DLLP off a safety professional who is the manager of safety in North America for our company. He said that these ideas are crazy. His reason may interest you, because he is not thinking of the normal or ordinary drivers that Helmet Head is trying to discuss. He's talking about the extraordinary circumstances that can kill people. He discussed his auto accident about two years ago, saying that he was driving in traffic, and the traffic witnessed a suicide off a bridge that fell onto the roadway ahead of him. The traffic stopped, and he also just was able to stop. But the lady behind him was paying attention to what had just happened, and not the traffic in front of her. She was unable to stop, and crashed into his car. He is still having back problems as a result of this crash, and his wife is also still having problems. He cringes when he thinks that they could have been riding their motorcycle, and be dead right now. On a bicycle, he would also be dead right now if he was in the lane. He has cut his motorcycling down to almost nothing as a result of this accident (he is not a bicyclist).
The point here is that it was very "relevant" to this lady that the traffic had stopped in front of her. But she was blind to that, and could not react in time to keep from crashing, hard.
Helmet head's technique will work perhaps 99.999% of the time. But if that is the case, then 1 out of a 100,000 cars it may not work for. Now, count how many cars pass you, and how long it will take to got to 100,000 if you assume a 99.999% rate of success. If you get passed by 100 cars a day (just a round figure I made up--it's probably low), that gives you 1000 cycling days that you may be safe, until "the" car comes by with a completely distracted driver. Hopefully, if you have implemented Helmet Heads technique correctly, you will be off to the right on the bike lane or the shoulder when the car passes. If not, you may end up on that car's grill.
In Oregon, we have been putting "rumble strips" on our major highways to give vibrations to vehicle drivers when they go over the fog line. This can job them out of a sleep, wake them up to the fact that they are driving off the side of the road. But if their eyes are closed, how can Helmet Head's technique work?
John
The point here is that it was very "relevant" to this lady that the traffic had stopped in front of her. But she was blind to that, and could not react in time to keep from crashing, hard.
Helmet head's technique will work perhaps 99.999% of the time. But if that is the case, then 1 out of a 100,000 cars it may not work for. Now, count how many cars pass you, and how long it will take to got to 100,000 if you assume a 99.999% rate of success. If you get passed by 100 cars a day (just a round figure I made up--it's probably low), that gives you 1000 cycling days that you may be safe, until "the" car comes by with a completely distracted driver. Hopefully, if you have implemented Helmet Heads technique correctly, you will be off to the right on the bike lane or the shoulder when the car passes. If not, you may end up on that car's grill.
In Oregon, we have been putting "rumble strips" on our major highways to give vibrations to vehicle drivers when they go over the fog line. This can job them out of a sleep, wake them up to the fact that they are driving off the side of the road. But if their eyes are closed, how can Helmet Head's technique work?
John
kf5nd
I think the original post could be summed up as follows:
Stay in the traffic lane most of the time, use the BL or shoulder as a refuge when the overtaking vehicles actually get close enough to pass?
If that's the correct interpretation, I don't like it, because it reinforces the notion that bikes have to do something, alter their behavior, to suit the Master Cars and Lord SUVs arround them.
I'd rather keep a straight, clean line in the BL or shoulder.
I monitor every car coming up on me in my mirror... if I see someone drifting too close to me, I do pop out into the middle of the traffic lane to let them see me (while keeping good & ready to dash back to the right if need be).
Pre-emptive something or other. But it does work for me. They always "wake up" and change lanes to pass me.
Stay in the traffic lane most of the time, use the BL or shoulder as a refuge when the overtaking vehicles actually get close enough to pass?
If that's the correct interpretation, I don't like it, because it reinforces the notion that bikes have to do something, alter their behavior, to suit the Master Cars and Lord SUVs arround them.
I'd rather keep a straight, clean line in the BL or shoulder.
I monitor every car coming up on me in my mirror... if I see someone drifting too close to me, I do pop out into the middle of the traffic lane to let them see me (while keeping good & ready to dash back to the right if need be).
Pre-emptive something or other. But it does work for me. They always "wake up" and change lanes to pass me.
volare
This thread gave me a headache!
I just try to ride my bike in a straight line.
I just try to ride my bike in a straight line.
chipcom
All hypotheses are based on premises that must be taken on faith.
You have to start somewhere. You can't prove everything.
Wrong - a hypothesis is a premise based on proven facts. How can you hypothesize that unicorns fly if you can't prove they exist at all? Yes, you have to start somewhere...but your hypothesis must have a solid base to start from - proven facts.
You have to start somewhere. You can't prove everything.
Wrong - a hypothesis is a premise based on proven facts. How can you hypothesize that unicorns fly if you can't prove they exist at all? Yes, you have to start somewhere...but your hypothesis must have a solid base to start from - proven facts.
sbhikes
Hopefully, if you have implemented Helmet Heads technique correctly, you will be off to the right on the bike lane or the shoulder when the car passes. If not, you may end up on that car's grill.
I think that is the point, John. If you follow HH's technique you will have already pulled over to let them pass.
The thing that I don't get is, if you pull out into the street to get their attention and you aren't able to for whatever reason, at some point you have to realize they don't see you and pull over anyway.
So basically, whether they see you or don't see you, react to you or don't react to you, you are always pulling over anyway. So why not just stay pulled over and only worry about people who are actually drifting off the shoulder? What the heck does it matter if they aren't paying you any mind as long as they stay in their own lane? It's a lot less work to hold your line, stay on the shoulder or in the bike lane, and then you only have to react to those who are worth reacting to: the small percentage of the already small percentage of people who are both not paying you any mind AND drifting over the edge of the road.
Also, with those occasions where taking the lane is wise, such as narrow roads where it is unsafe to pass, I still vascillate between whether that is actually safer or not safer. The days I don't do it, I get unsafe passes. The days I do do it, people sometimes come up behind me so quickly on blind turns that they have to make an unsafe pass to avoid hitting me anyway. It's like sometimes there just isn't a safe way to share roads with reckless, unsafe, distracted or otherwise bad drivers.
I think that is the point, John. If you follow HH's technique you will have already pulled over to let them pass.
The thing that I don't get is, if you pull out into the street to get their attention and you aren't able to for whatever reason, at some point you have to realize they don't see you and pull over anyway.
So basically, whether they see you or don't see you, react to you or don't react to you, you are always pulling over anyway. So why not just stay pulled over and only worry about people who are actually drifting off the shoulder? What the heck does it matter if they aren't paying you any mind as long as they stay in their own lane? It's a lot less work to hold your line, stay on the shoulder or in the bike lane, and then you only have to react to those who are worth reacting to: the small percentage of the already small percentage of people who are both not paying you any mind AND drifting over the edge of the road.
Also, with those occasions where taking the lane is wise, such as narrow roads where it is unsafe to pass, I still vascillate between whether that is actually safer or not safer. The days I don't do it, I get unsafe passes. The days I do do it, people sometimes come up behind me so quickly on blind turns that they have to make an unsafe pass to avoid hitting me anyway. It's like sometimes there just isn't a safe way to share roads with reckless, unsafe, distracted or otherwise bad drivers.
joejack951
I am using the definitions from the historical studies which John Forester used to make his point that "taking the lane" is not a dangerous maneuver. Tell me, how is "inadvertent drift" different from a "hit from behind"? How else would a cyclist be "hit from behind" if not from "inadvertent drift" if they are riding to the right of the traffic stream?
When "taking the lane" the cyclist is in the traffic lane. When riding in the shoulder, the cyclist is not in the traffic lane. A motorist would not inadvertently drift into something in their lane but they could inadvertently drift into something not in their lane. If they hit something in the lane we would not call it an inadvertent drift into that object. We would say that they did not see the object in their lane. Getting hit from behind while in the shoulder is different than getting hit from behind while in the traffic lane. I don't consider riding in the shoulder to be "taking the lane." You cannot compare the two like you are trying to do.
My point is that "hit from behind" is extremely rare. It is the whole reason that VC works at all. It is the whole reason why when "taking the lane," motorists don't just run into the cyclist willy nilly. Now, I can believe that cyclists who are to the far right (like in the gutter pan, which is where cyclists tend to ride on WOLs, though, of course, they don't have to) will be likely overlooked by a motorist. This is why I ride next to the white line, just to the right or left (or on top) depending on conditions.
If you believe what you just wrote, I don't see how you can have any objections to DLLP. I used to ride just like you say you ride now until I realized that riding in that position requires just as much attention to same direction traffic as riding DLLP. The big drawback to riding like that is that it often positions you at the margins of the roads where you are more likely to encounter debris or other obstacles such as potholes and are less visible to oncoming traffic.
I like Robert Hurst's take on the issue. Unless you are in the gutter pan, wayyyyyyy off to the side, visibility from behind is not an issue. It is about sightlines for yourself and for motorists on sidestreets, and it is about space, whether putting buffers between you and cross traffic on the right, or physically keeping the motorist from squeezing you into a narrow spot. When I make my decisions about lane position, it is never about visibility from behind. It is always about visibility to motorists from the side, and space.
So you don't worry about left hooks from oncoming traffic when you position yourself?
When "taking the lane" the cyclist is in the traffic lane. When riding in the shoulder, the cyclist is not in the traffic lane. A motorist would not inadvertently drift into something in their lane but they could inadvertently drift into something not in their lane. If they hit something in the lane we would not call it an inadvertent drift into that object. We would say that they did not see the object in their lane. Getting hit from behind while in the shoulder is different than getting hit from behind while in the traffic lane. I don't consider riding in the shoulder to be "taking the lane." You cannot compare the two like you are trying to do.
My point is that "hit from behind" is extremely rare. It is the whole reason that VC works at all. It is the whole reason why when "taking the lane," motorists don't just run into the cyclist willy nilly. Now, I can believe that cyclists who are to the far right (like in the gutter pan, which is where cyclists tend to ride on WOLs, though, of course, they don't have to) will be likely overlooked by a motorist. This is why I ride next to the white line, just to the right or left (or on top) depending on conditions.
If you believe what you just wrote, I don't see how you can have any objections to DLLP. I used to ride just like you say you ride now until I realized that riding in that position requires just as much attention to same direction traffic as riding DLLP. The big drawback to riding like that is that it often positions you at the margins of the roads where you are more likely to encounter debris or other obstacles such as potholes and are less visible to oncoming traffic.
I like Robert Hurst's take on the issue. Unless you are in the gutter pan, wayyyyyyy off to the side, visibility from behind is not an issue. It is about sightlines for yourself and for motorists on sidestreets, and it is about space, whether putting buffers between you and cross traffic on the right, or physically keeping the motorist from squeezing you into a narrow spot. When I make my decisions about lane position, it is never about visibility from behind. It is always about visibility to motorists from the side, and space.
So you don't worry about left hooks from oncoming traffic when you position yourself?
Helmet Head
When people say that they adjust position for the primary reason of increasing conspicuity to motorists, it is a red flag to me.
Me too. Has anyone said the primary reason they adjust position is for increasing conspicuity? By the way, this is now FAQ #10.
Although that is one of the prime messages of LAB/EC/VC whatever, the mantra of stay 'visible and predictable' to motorists, in my opinion it is a miserable philosophy, a grave disservice to cyclists, and an ugly example of putting the cart before the horse. Let me explain...
For what it's worth, you've convinced me. Though I have a slightly different take on it. I believe the reason vigiilance is not emphasized the way it should be by LAB/EC/VC is not because they don't do it, but because it seems so obvious and natural to the proponents of EC/VC that they, like most experienced cyclists, don't realize how significant it is. To them, it's like pointing out that keeping your eyes open is required when cycling in traffic. The idea that you should be PAYING ATTENTION while riding in traffic is, well, pretty obvious. However, I do think that paying attention properly does not come naturally to many "novice" cyclist, and, so, i agree with you that the lack of emphasis on vigilance, including using lane position to improve one's ability to be vigilant, is missing from EC/VC training. I've made it a personal mission to fix this, and I'll let you know how it's going....
Increasing conspicuity is a helpful BONUS of leftward positioning, it's a wonderful fantastic thing, but not the reason for doing it.
In general I agree. But, the reason I emphasize it so much is as an antitode to the thinking that faster overtaking traffic is the reason for NOT doing it. Obviously, it is the reason to move aside (when safe and reasonable to do so), when faster traffic is present. But I'm talking about the prevalent use of the fact that "pretty soon" faster traffic will be here again, and staying near the outside edge for that reason. It's an antitode to that kind of thinking, which I think is very prevalent.
What you present below, while I agree with it, is not compelling to the person who "hugs the right" side because of fear of same-direction traffic not seeing him in the lane and running right into him. It's not compelling because it does not address the reason he stays right. My argument, on the other, turns their fear upside down, and uses the source of their fear as the reason to move left. I'm not sure it's compelling either, but that, for what it's worth, is why I'm pushing it so hard. The push-back I get is fascinating, to say the least.
Why move left then? Move left to improve your own personal sight lines, and to create a buffer of space and time between yourself and inevitable intrusions from the right. When folks put 'increase visibility and predictability to motorists' above these reasons, at the top of their lists of reasons for 'DLLP' in urban areas, it tells me that they are still in the wrong frame of mind for dealing with traffic. They still put too much faith in drivers, they still offer them bits of the responsibility for their own safety that are better held by the cyclist. It is responsibility better held by the cyclist because, no matter if you have maximized conspicuity to motorists in every sense, there will still be those who fail to notice your presence. That's a fact. That's inevitable.
The concept of lateral lane positioning is a strategy for mitigating danger from CROSS-TRAFFIC and is closely linked with cycling speed. "At moderate, ho-hum urban-cycling speeds, the rider will not have to be too concerned about maintaining a buffer zone unless the street is lined with parked cars. Streets with clear edges, few pedestrians, a view all the way to the curb, and good lines of sight to any driveways, alleys, or intersections can be ridden safely all the way to the right if one wishes." (p. 76. A of UC)
All these discussions of increasing conspicuity on rural roads reveal (1) the same bizarre over-obsession with same-direction traffic that has infected cycling safety discussions since the 70's and which I believe created the Vehicular Cycling movement in a lightning flash of irony that was too bright to look at directly, and (2) a misplaced faith in lane position as an effective means of ensuring conspicuity.
Robert
No one has suggested that lane position ensures conspicuity. What I contend, however, is that it greatly improves cognitive conspicuity - causing motorist to pay much more attention to me more often. At least that's my experience. But, of course, it does not eliminate the possibility of someone overlooking me, a possibility for which I remain ever-vigilant.
Also, did you read FAQ #5 in the OP? In the answer, I point out how this technique helps the cyclist stay alert and paying attention (being vigilant) as opposed to falling into a mindless mode thinking about something other than traffic...
5. It seems like a lot of work. Is it? You say "work", I say "paying attention", and that's a good thing. In a shoulder or bike lane it's all too easy to lapse into a mindless wandering of thoughts where we can become as oblivious to traffic as some of the overtaking motorists are to our presence. That's not good. Staying engaged in DLLP helps keep the cyclist alert and paying attention to what is going on around him. That's good. It's good to notice in your mirror that there is no same-direction traffic and to move out into the main traffic lane, and to pay attention with your mirror (a microsecond glance every 3-5 seconds all it normally takes) to note when traffic is approaching from behind, and to move out of the way when you've been out there long enough in their path for them to have been very unlikely to still not have noticed you.
Me too. Has anyone said the primary reason they adjust position is for increasing conspicuity? By the way, this is now FAQ #10.
Although that is one of the prime messages of LAB/EC/VC whatever, the mantra of stay 'visible and predictable' to motorists, in my opinion it is a miserable philosophy, a grave disservice to cyclists, and an ugly example of putting the cart before the horse. Let me explain...
For what it's worth, you've convinced me. Though I have a slightly different take on it. I believe the reason vigiilance is not emphasized the way it should be by LAB/EC/VC is not because they don't do it, but because it seems so obvious and natural to the proponents of EC/VC that they, like most experienced cyclists, don't realize how significant it is. To them, it's like pointing out that keeping your eyes open is required when cycling in traffic. The idea that you should be PAYING ATTENTION while riding in traffic is, well, pretty obvious. However, I do think that paying attention properly does not come naturally to many "novice" cyclist, and, so, i agree with you that the lack of emphasis on vigilance, including using lane position to improve one's ability to be vigilant, is missing from EC/VC training. I've made it a personal mission to fix this, and I'll let you know how it's going....
Increasing conspicuity is a helpful BONUS of leftward positioning, it's a wonderful fantastic thing, but not the reason for doing it.
In general I agree. But, the reason I emphasize it so much is as an antitode to the thinking that faster overtaking traffic is the reason for NOT doing it. Obviously, it is the reason to move aside (when safe and reasonable to do so), when faster traffic is present. But I'm talking about the prevalent use of the fact that "pretty soon" faster traffic will be here again, and staying near the outside edge for that reason. It's an antitode to that kind of thinking, which I think is very prevalent.
What you present below, while I agree with it, is not compelling to the person who "hugs the right" side because of fear of same-direction traffic not seeing him in the lane and running right into him. It's not compelling because it does not address the reason he stays right. My argument, on the other, turns their fear upside down, and uses the source of their fear as the reason to move left. I'm not sure it's compelling either, but that, for what it's worth, is why I'm pushing it so hard. The push-back I get is fascinating, to say the least.
Why move left then? Move left to improve your own personal sight lines, and to create a buffer of space and time between yourself and inevitable intrusions from the right. When folks put 'increase visibility and predictability to motorists' above these reasons, at the top of their lists of reasons for 'DLLP' in urban areas, it tells me that they are still in the wrong frame of mind for dealing with traffic. They still put too much faith in drivers, they still offer them bits of the responsibility for their own safety that are better held by the cyclist. It is responsibility better held by the cyclist because, no matter if you have maximized conspicuity to motorists in every sense, there will still be those who fail to notice your presence. That's a fact. That's inevitable.
The concept of lateral lane positioning is a strategy for mitigating danger from CROSS-TRAFFIC and is closely linked with cycling speed. "At moderate, ho-hum urban-cycling speeds, the rider will not have to be too concerned about maintaining a buffer zone unless the street is lined with parked cars. Streets with clear edges, few pedestrians, a view all the way to the curb, and good lines of sight to any driveways, alleys, or intersections can be ridden safely all the way to the right if one wishes." (p. 76. A of UC)
All these discussions of increasing conspicuity on rural roads reveal (1) the same bizarre over-obsession with same-direction traffic that has infected cycling safety discussions since the 70's and which I believe created the Vehicular Cycling movement in a lightning flash of irony that was too bright to look at directly, and (2) a misplaced faith in lane position as an effective means of ensuring conspicuity.
Robert
No one has suggested that lane position ensures conspicuity. What I contend, however, is that it greatly improves cognitive conspicuity - causing motorist to pay much more attention to me more often. At least that's my experience. But, of course, it does not eliminate the possibility of someone overlooking me, a possibility for which I remain ever-vigilant.
Also, did you read FAQ #5 in the OP? In the answer, I point out how this technique helps the cyclist stay alert and paying attention (being vigilant) as opposed to falling into a mindless mode thinking about something other than traffic...
5. It seems like a lot of work. Is it? You say "work", I say "paying attention", and that's a good thing. In a shoulder or bike lane it's all too easy to lapse into a mindless wandering of thoughts where we can become as oblivious to traffic as some of the overtaking motorists are to our presence. That's not good. Staying engaged in DLLP helps keep the cyclist alert and paying attention to what is going on around him. That's good. It's good to notice in your mirror that there is no same-direction traffic and to move out into the main traffic lane, and to pay attention with your mirror (a microsecond glance every 3-5 seconds all it normally takes) to note when traffic is approaching from behind, and to move out of the way when you've been out there long enough in their path for them to have been very unlikely to still not have noticed you.
Bekologist
head, your technique is exponentially more dangerous than simply keeping right in a safe lane position and monitoring traffic, whenyou place yourself in the path of EVERY vehicle.
a lane position that is SAFE in the PRESENCE of traffic does NOT become UNSAFE in the ABSENCE of traffic.
Keep as far right as safe and practicable, move left as necessary;
NOT keep left, move right - before every car passes - that's a exponentially more dangerous lane positioning technique.
Are you slysdexic?
a lane position that is SAFE in the PRESENCE of traffic does NOT become UNSAFE in the ABSENCE of traffic.
Keep as far right as safe and practicable, move left as necessary;
NOT keep left, move right - before every car passes - that's a exponentially more dangerous lane positioning technique.
Are you slysdexic?
Bekologist
It's always interesting to hear a motorist's perspective on proper cycling techniques.
when you develop your techniques from behind the wheel of your RV or driving your car to the dentist and the local bike advocacy meeting, I can see how ones' perspective becomes skewed.....
when you develop your techniques from behind the wheel of your RV or driving your car to the dentist and the local bike advocacy meeting, I can see how ones' perspective becomes skewed.....
John E
For the record, I rarely practice real-time DLLP. However, I do admit that DLLP MAY make one more visible or conspicuous to motorists, because it triggers a reaction in their peripheral vision field, which is sensitive primarily to motion.
I find that, even on a wide street with bike lanes, I do vary my lateral position according to my absolute speed, my speed relative to motor traffic, and the presence of intersections, parked cars, and driveway cuts. Descending 40mph / 65kph La Costa Av. from Rancho Santa Fe Rd. at 25mph / 40kph, I am much more comfortable and feel much more conspicuous, and therefore safer, in the rightmost travel lane's right side tire tracks than in the bike lane. Having a little extra lateral wiggle room is a good thing. In contrast, when climbing the same hill on the other side of the road at 7mph / 11kph, I stay in the bike lane.
One argument against taking the center of the right lane when the bike lane or shoulder is usable and clear is that you can send an ambiguous signal to overtaking motorists, who just might try to pass on your RIGHT. This is perfect if they want to turn right, but disastrous if they want to proceed straight.
I find that, even on a wide street with bike lanes, I do vary my lateral position according to my absolute speed, my speed relative to motor traffic, and the presence of intersections, parked cars, and driveway cuts. Descending 40mph / 65kph La Costa Av. from Rancho Santa Fe Rd. at 25mph / 40kph, I am much more comfortable and feel much more conspicuous, and therefore safer, in the rightmost travel lane's right side tire tracks than in the bike lane. Having a little extra lateral wiggle room is a good thing. In contrast, when climbing the same hill on the other side of the road at 7mph / 11kph, I stay in the bike lane.
One argument against taking the center of the right lane when the bike lane or shoulder is usable and clear is that you can send an ambiguous signal to overtaking motorists, who just might try to pass on your RIGHT. This is perfect if they want to turn right, but disastrous if they want to proceed straight.
mechBgon
Helmet Head,
I have been away for a week on a business trip. Tonight, I read this new thread, and that you want to be challenged on the statements you posted here. Okay, here's your challenge:
1. In traffic doing 55 mph (which is normal here), in 10 seconds the vehicle will cover 806 feet. Are you able to see something 800 feet behind you? You also mentioned getting out of the way at 10 seconds. That's quite far behind. Is that enough space for the car to perceive you as in the lane?
Can you realistically perceive in a helmet mirror a car at 800 feet (~270 yards) away?
I have a few more stories to tell, but they'll have to wait until after supper. Suffice it to say that two reasons for people to drift off the lane are fatigue (sleepiness) and being drunk. Does your theory take into consideration either of these contingencies? I think you are assuming in your premises that the drivers are in a sufficiently alert state to perceive you.
JohnTo give people a real-world feel for the distances that John C. Ratliff is asking Helmet Head about, here are some photos. The first two are just 640x480 thumbnails, click the link for a bigger 1024 x 768 version (PM me if you want the full-on 2592 x 1944 resolutions). Where the road curves left out of sight, is about 270 meters. The camera is at about 2x zoom for these first two photos.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/non-hi-vis_small.jpg
click here for 1024 x 768 resolution (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/non-hi-vis.jpg)
Above: me riding in non-hi-visibility clothing at ~270 meters in a bike lane. The camera is zoomed to about 2x in order to give a reduced field of view that I think would be realistic for a motorist coming through this stretch. Do I stand out? (open the 1024 x 768 pic)
Would I really stand out any better if I were a few feet to the left? Remember, if we use Helmet Head's technique, I would pull into the bike lane at this range in a 55mph zone.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis_small.jpg
click here for 1024 x 768 resolution (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis.jpg)
Above: This is the same scene with me in my ANSI fluorescent-lime vest. No, I did not push the Make-Cars-Invisible™ button :p there just weren't any this time. Do you think the hi-vis color substantially helps me be noticed? (open the 1024 x 768 pic)
Do you think the hi-vis outerwear helps my conspicuity more than if I were positioned a few feet to the left?
Can you honestly tell which side of the bike-lane line I'm on here?
Does the hi-vis outerwear rely on me constantly paying attention to it, or does it work regardless?
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/car_270m.jpg
Above: This photo is looking back up the road to where I'd planted the camera for the previous photos. The car indicated by the red arrow is about where my previous two photos were shot from. This isn't zoomed, so now you see what 270 meters really looks like.
Instead of a white car with its DRLs on, make that a dark-colored car without daytime running lights, add some helmet-mirror vibration and maybe some glare from the sun. How reliably would you detect a car that far behind you, using your helmet mirror under those real-world conditions? Remember, this is 10 seconds out at 55mph, and you're supposed to be pulling out of the lane when cars get this close. Helmet Head said so.
Now how about a motorcycle instead of a car?
Notice the motorcyclist at about 200 meters. He's in the traffic lane, isn't he? Did you notice him without taking a second look? In light of that, if a bicyclist were at this range without some visibility enhancements, would the motorist have a high likelihood of seeing the cyclist as-is, even in the traffic lane?
Do you think a daytime-visible tailstrobe such as the SuperFlash (http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=PBBSF&tnum=2820719&c=3758772), and some hi-visibility outerwear (http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=137&subcategory=1206&brand=&sku=15778&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat:%20Long%20Sleeve%20Jerseys), would tend to draw the motorists' focus to the cyclist at this range? Better than lane-positioning tactics, perhaps?
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/lane_position.jpg
This photo shows me just a few seconds ahead on a street with a bike lane. Can you tell which side of the bike-lane line I'm on? No you can't. So much for the relevance of lane position, eh? My previous commute home up Southeast Boulevard had similar kinks, curves and a rise at the end that often made precise lane position nothing more than a calculated guess by the viewer, even from relatively close range. And that's when the bike-lane line wasn't (1) worn off, or (2) underneath ice & snow.
click here for another similar example (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/lane_position_2.jpg) and then compare that photo to this one. (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/lowvis.jpg) Is my lane position, or this other guy's, evident to you (except by reference to where the car is)? Now compare our overall conspicuity. Whose is better, and why?
For newbies who want one of these neon-lime vests, that's an ANSI Class III vest that also has a great deal of reflective tape for extra conspicuity in darkness (see mech's visibility page (http://www.mechbgon.com/visibility) for more info on the real-world limitations of reflective gear). Check local industrial-safety stores for these types of vests. They can be good for commuting since they're affordable, don't need washing every day, and you can wear it over whatever clothing your weather calls for.
I'll also remark that on my route to downtown, there aren't that many places where I could even get a 10-second "window" behind me for very long, due to hills and curves.
If anyone's perceptive enough to notice that this bike is way too small, and that I used creamy peanut butter AGAIN... well, that's my little sister's bike that I was trying to drop off at her place, and darn it, I like creamy :p
I have been away for a week on a business trip. Tonight, I read this new thread, and that you want to be challenged on the statements you posted here. Okay, here's your challenge:
1. In traffic doing 55 mph (which is normal here), in 10 seconds the vehicle will cover 806 feet. Are you able to see something 800 feet behind you? You also mentioned getting out of the way at 10 seconds. That's quite far behind. Is that enough space for the car to perceive you as in the lane?
Can you realistically perceive in a helmet mirror a car at 800 feet (~270 yards) away?
I have a few more stories to tell, but they'll have to wait until after supper. Suffice it to say that two reasons for people to drift off the lane are fatigue (sleepiness) and being drunk. Does your theory take into consideration either of these contingencies? I think you are assuming in your premises that the drivers are in a sufficiently alert state to perceive you.
JohnTo give people a real-world feel for the distances that John C. Ratliff is asking Helmet Head about, here are some photos. The first two are just 640x480 thumbnails, click the link for a bigger 1024 x 768 version (PM me if you want the full-on 2592 x 1944 resolutions). Where the road curves left out of sight, is about 270 meters. The camera is at about 2x zoom for these first two photos.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/non-hi-vis_small.jpg
click here for 1024 x 768 resolution (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/non-hi-vis.jpg)
Above: me riding in non-hi-visibility clothing at ~270 meters in a bike lane. The camera is zoomed to about 2x in order to give a reduced field of view that I think would be realistic for a motorist coming through this stretch. Do I stand out? (open the 1024 x 768 pic)
Would I really stand out any better if I were a few feet to the left? Remember, if we use Helmet Head's technique, I would pull into the bike lane at this range in a 55mph zone.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis_small.jpg
click here for 1024 x 768 resolution (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis.jpg)
Above: This is the same scene with me in my ANSI fluorescent-lime vest. No, I did not push the Make-Cars-Invisible™ button :p there just weren't any this time. Do you think the hi-vis color substantially helps me be noticed? (open the 1024 x 768 pic)
Do you think the hi-vis outerwear helps my conspicuity more than if I were positioned a few feet to the left?
Can you honestly tell which side of the bike-lane line I'm on here?
Does the hi-vis outerwear rely on me constantly paying attention to it, or does it work regardless?
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/car_270m.jpg
Above: This photo is looking back up the road to where I'd planted the camera for the previous photos. The car indicated by the red arrow is about where my previous two photos were shot from. This isn't zoomed, so now you see what 270 meters really looks like.
Instead of a white car with its DRLs on, make that a dark-colored car without daytime running lights, add some helmet-mirror vibration and maybe some glare from the sun. How reliably would you detect a car that far behind you, using your helmet mirror under those real-world conditions? Remember, this is 10 seconds out at 55mph, and you're supposed to be pulling out of the lane when cars get this close. Helmet Head said so.
Now how about a motorcycle instead of a car?
Notice the motorcyclist at about 200 meters. He's in the traffic lane, isn't he? Did you notice him without taking a second look? In light of that, if a bicyclist were at this range without some visibility enhancements, would the motorist have a high likelihood of seeing the cyclist as-is, even in the traffic lane?
Do you think a daytime-visible tailstrobe such as the SuperFlash (http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=PBBSF&tnum=2820719&c=3758772), and some hi-visibility outerwear (http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=137&subcategory=1206&brand=&sku=15778&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat:%20Long%20Sleeve%20Jerseys), would tend to draw the motorists' focus to the cyclist at this range? Better than lane-positioning tactics, perhaps?
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/lane_position.jpg
This photo shows me just a few seconds ahead on a street with a bike lane. Can you tell which side of the bike-lane line I'm on? No you can't. So much for the relevance of lane position, eh? My previous commute home up Southeast Boulevard had similar kinks, curves and a rise at the end that often made precise lane position nothing more than a calculated guess by the viewer, even from relatively close range. And that's when the bike-lane line wasn't (1) worn off, or (2) underneath ice & snow.
click here for another similar example (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/lane_position_2.jpg) and then compare that photo to this one. (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/lowvis.jpg) Is my lane position, or this other guy's, evident to you (except by reference to where the car is)? Now compare our overall conspicuity. Whose is better, and why?
For newbies who want one of these neon-lime vests, that's an ANSI Class III vest that also has a great deal of reflective tape for extra conspicuity in darkness (see mech's visibility page (http://www.mechbgon.com/visibility) for more info on the real-world limitations of reflective gear). Check local industrial-safety stores for these types of vests. They can be good for commuting since they're affordable, don't need washing every day, and you can wear it over whatever clothing your weather calls for.
I'll also remark that on my route to downtown, there aren't that many places where I could even get a 10-second "window" behind me for very long, due to hills and curves.
If anyone's perceptive enough to notice that this bike is way too small, and that I used creamy peanut butter AGAIN... well, that's my little sister's bike that I was trying to drop off at her place, and darn it, I like creamy :p
mechBgon
Ooops, double post :) We now resume our spectating.
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/Internet_debates.jpg
Internet debate... <Spock> fascinating. </Spock>
http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/Internet_debates.jpg
Internet debate... <Spock> fascinating. </Spock>
sbhikes
In the picture with the red arrow I think what really stands out are the daytime lights on that car. I think I would be able to see that in my mirror. I did not see the motorcyclist. Guess he wasn't 'relavent' to me. ;)
I know that on dangerous highways near where I live there are daytime headlight advisories. This is supposed to help drivers be able to see other drivers on long, straight sections so that they won't pass unsafely. I guess lane position isn't enough for drivers to see other cars.
Honestly, close up I can see your jacket, but I stared at the other smaller picture for a long time before I could see the tiny pin-prick that was you with your jacket on. So I would have to say good daytime lights would have to be the best tool of them all for making yourself visible to other vehicle operators out there. In some sense, I would think your brain would naturally think that if it has lights it must be relevant.
I know that on dangerous highways near where I live there are daytime headlight advisories. This is supposed to help drivers be able to see other drivers on long, straight sections so that they won't pass unsafely. I guess lane position isn't enough for drivers to see other cars.
Honestly, close up I can see your jacket, but I stared at the other smaller picture for a long time before I could see the tiny pin-prick that was you with your jacket on. So I would have to say good daytime lights would have to be the best tool of them all for making yourself visible to other vehicle operators out there. In some sense, I would think your brain would naturally think that if it has lights it must be relevant.
vrkelley
Good points Mech. Notice how the yellow blends in with the fall colors...in this case blaze orange would have been more visable. That is the average speed along that stretch?
Brian
http://www.wendychan.com/yawn.jpg
mechBgon
Good points Mech. Notice how the yellow blends in with the fall colors...in this case blaze orange would have been more visable. That is the average speed along that stretch?I think cameras tend to fall short of capturing the fluorescent nature of the ANSI Lime color, but hey :) While I was shooting the 270-meter pics, a cyclist did come by in a fluorescent-lime Pearl Izumi vest, and it was hard to miss. I even forgot to scope out what kind of bike she had :D
The speed on this stretch thankfully is not 55mph, it's posted 30mph with traffic generally doing 35. But the main point is to show what a cyclist looks like from 270 meters, like John C. Ratliff mentioned, and also to show what a car looks like from that distance. Because at that range, Helmet Head seems to think he is already highly conspicuous to overtaking motorists, and that he will see nearly every overtaking motorist at that range with his infallible helmet mirror. I threw in assorted other points as a bonus, such as the fact that lane position is not always easy to determine by looking.
The speed on this stretch thankfully is not 55mph, it's posted 30mph with traffic generally doing 35. But the main point is to show what a cyclist looks like from 270 meters, like John C. Ratliff mentioned, and also to show what a car looks like from that distance. Because at that range, Helmet Head seems to think he is already highly conspicuous to overtaking motorists, and that he will see nearly every overtaking motorist at that range with his infallible helmet mirror. I threw in assorted other points as a bonus, such as the fact that lane position is not always easy to determine by looking.
vrkelley
Although some may yawn...that was a lot of work going out there, posting those pictures and trying to make a tangible argument! Good job MechB :)
Bekologist
Good points Mech. Notice how the yellow blends in with the fall colors...in this case blaze orange would have been more visable. That is the average speed along that stretch?
I've got a 10-mile cloth Blaze orange vest i break out about this time of year for daytime riding. rode a great loop today, VR....Seattle to Woodinville to Tolt Pipeline trail, ripped the Pipeline in about 45 minutes, and back to Seattle via Woodinville-Duvall road and the Burke Gilman. great riding weather today, eh? I bet the Kitsap Color Classic was fantastic...
oh, and on the curvy, highway speed Woodinville-Duvall road today with sun and shade, my conspicuity devices were much more valuable than lane position. which i took when necessary. otherwise rode in the safe and acceptable shoulder. sometimes there was only 3 or 4 seconds of closing time on some of the blind curves, being in the travel lane with that short of a reaction window could easily create a compounding situation quite rapidly.
I've got a 10-mile cloth Blaze orange vest i break out about this time of year for daytime riding. rode a great loop today, VR....Seattle to Woodinville to Tolt Pipeline trail, ripped the Pipeline in about 45 minutes, and back to Seattle via Woodinville-Duvall road and the Burke Gilman. great riding weather today, eh? I bet the Kitsap Color Classic was fantastic...
oh, and on the curvy, highway speed Woodinville-Duvall road today with sun and shade, my conspicuity devices were much more valuable than lane position. which i took when necessary. otherwise rode in the safe and acceptable shoulder. sometimes there was only 3 or 4 seconds of closing time on some of the blind curves, being in the travel lane with that short of a reaction window could easily create a compounding situation quite rapidly.
joejack951
To This photo is looking back up the road to where I'd planted the camera for the previous photos. The car indicated by the red arrow is about where my previous two photos were shot from. This isn't zoomed, so now you see what 270 meters really looks like.
[list]
Instead of a white car with its DRLs on, make that a dark-colored car without daytime running lights, add some helmet-mirror vibration and maybe some glare from the sun. How reliably would you detect a car that far behind you, using your helmet mirror under those real-world conditions? Remember, this is 10 seconds out at 55mph, and you're supposed to be pulling out of the lane when cars get this close. Helmet Head said so.
Please note that 800 ft./270 meters is with a closing speed of 55mph. Assuming the cyclist is moving at all, the distance will be less than shown. What Mech's pics do a good job of illustrating is how much a winding road can conceal a cyclist's (or slow moving vehicle's) presence, hence the reason for the 30mph speed limit in this area (which would yield a distance of 360 ft./120 meters distance at 10 seconds, assuming 35mph motorist and 10mph cyclist).
[list]
Instead of a white car with its DRLs on, make that a dark-colored car without daytime running lights, add some helmet-mirror vibration and maybe some glare from the sun. How reliably would you detect a car that far behind you, using your helmet mirror under those real-world conditions? Remember, this is 10 seconds out at 55mph, and you're supposed to be pulling out of the lane when cars get this close. Helmet Head said so.
Please note that 800 ft./270 meters is with a closing speed of 55mph. Assuming the cyclist is moving at all, the distance will be less than shown. What Mech's pics do a good job of illustrating is how much a winding road can conceal a cyclist's (or slow moving vehicle's) presence, hence the reason for the 30mph speed limit in this area (which would yield a distance of 360 ft./120 meters distance at 10 seconds, assuming 35mph motorist and 10mph cyclist).
tomcryar
Are we going to go another 12 pages of discourse about something that everybody already knows? !!
mechBgon
Please note that 800 ft./270 meters is with a closing speed of 55mph. Assuming the cyclist is moving at all, the distance will be less than shown.That might be true, if people really drove 55 in 55 zones ;) I think the main point that JCR made has been illustrated. There also remains JCR's question of whether the technique mitigates the "drift" threat from drunk, high, or sleeping motorists.
Are we going to go another 12 pages of discourse about something that everybody already knows? !!I don't intend to spend a lot of time on it myself :) Everyone should be grateful he's confining it to this thread from now on, actually.
Although some may yawn...that was a lot of work going out there, posting those pictures and trying to make a tangible argument! Good job MechB :)Thanks! Keepin' it real... :beer:
Are we going to go another 12 pages of discourse about something that everybody already knows? !!I don't intend to spend a lot of time on it myself :) Everyone should be grateful he's confining it to this thread from now on, actually.
Although some may yawn...that was a lot of work going out there, posting those pictures and trying to make a tangible argument! Good job MechB :)Thanks! Keepin' it real... :beer:
tomcryar
Alot of other people may see this and take it as gospel...........I don't want new cyclists to read all this BS and conclude that it's not worth it.
mechBgon
Alot of other people may see this and take it as gospel...........I don't want new cyclists to read all this BS and conclude that it's not worth it.My thought on that, looking at the first post in the thread: ever seen something collapse under its own weight before?
I've patiently made step-by-step malware-removal instructions for many people who've asked for help (with their computer viruses & spyware). All too often, they see my list of 10+ steps, neatly enumerated and bulleted, written in plain English with short sentences and links to all the necessary resources, and they won't try it. Because it looks like it would be TOO HARD. :rolleyes:
Based on that experience, I don't think many newbie riders will get very far into HH's original post before their eyes glaze over http://forums.anandtech.com/i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif If they do make it through that post, they can make it further into the thread and get the counterpoint as well.
I've patiently made step-by-step malware-removal instructions for many people who've asked for help (with their computer viruses & spyware). All too often, they see my list of 10+ steps, neatly enumerated and bulleted, written in plain English with short sentences and links to all the necessary resources, and they won't try it. Because it looks like it would be TOO HARD. :rolleyes:
Based on that experience, I don't think many newbie riders will get very far into HH's original post before their eyes glaze over http://forums.anandtech.com/i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif If they do make it through that post, they can make it further into the thread and get the counterpoint as well.
tomcryar
If they make it any further, they are better equipped to filter the BS than me....
tomcryar
PS.. You wanna explain your first sentence on the second paragraph?
mechBgon
PS.. You wanna explain your first sentence on the second paragraph?Help me out here, which paragraph are we talking?
tomcryar
I think 1st sentence, second paragraph is what I asked.........
There is no reply in between.
There is no reply in between.
mechBgon
I think 1st sentence, second paragraph is what I asked.........
There is no reply in between.I meant from which post, but if you mean the one referring to malware, that's when someone posts "HELP! My computer is infected with 50 kinds of pop-ups and viruses and spyware, how do I get rid of it?!?!" It can be really difficult to get them to cooperate instead of freaking out that OMG there will be more than two steps?!?!
And it's even harder to get them to actually take steps to prevent it from happening again. You can lead a horse to water... ;) yeah. But I digress. Back to our regularly-scheduled program. :)
There is no reply in between.I meant from which post, but if you mean the one referring to malware, that's when someone posts "HELP! My computer is infected with 50 kinds of pop-ups and viruses and spyware, how do I get rid of it?!?!" It can be really difficult to get them to cooperate instead of freaking out that OMG there will be more than two steps?!?!
And it's even harder to get them to actually take steps to prevent it from happening again. You can lead a horse to water... ;) yeah. But I digress. Back to our regularly-scheduled program. :)
Cyclaholic
mechBgon, thanks for taking the time to put some real world data up for scrutiny, it just shows me how visibility comes primarily from things like the hi-vis vest and good lights. Those couple of lateral feet from the distances in question are totally irrelevant.
natelutkjohn
All hypotheses are based on premises that must be taken on faith.
You have to start somewhere. You can't prove everything.
I'm glad you don't design airplanes or work in experimental physics man! A hypothesis is a guess, just a guess, then the one who makes the hypothesis (or someone) is required to prove it if you want to call it a theory or a get any credibility.
Faith is what sick people need.
You have to start somewhere. You can't prove everything.
I'm glad you don't design airplanes or work in experimental physics man! A hypothesis is a guess, just a guess, then the one who makes the hypothesis (or someone) is required to prove it if you want to call it a theory or a get any credibility.
Faith is what sick people need.
galen_52657
I'm glad you don't design airplanes [/I]
Wright Brothers took a guess...
Wright Brothers took a guess...
John C. Ratliff
Wright Brothers took a guess...
...then took another three or four years building models, building wind tunnels, developing a wing that worked, making a full-sized mockup, then making an airplane that actually worked. They took their hypotheses, developed a working theory of flight, tested it with these models (first kites, then mockups, then working models), and after a number of years and failures, had something that worked.
Here, we have a hypothesis put out there without any validation, that DLLP works, based upon possibly flawed logic, as a working model. Where are the years of work required to validate this hypothesis? I read the first post, and it jumped from the hypothesis to the conclusions, without much in between in the way of validated data.
John
...then took another three or four years building models, building wind tunnels, developing a wing that worked, making a full-sized mockup, then making an airplane that actually worked. They took their hypotheses, developed a working theory of flight, tested it with these models (first kites, then mockups, then working models), and after a number of years and failures, had something that worked.
Here, we have a hypothesis put out there without any validation, that DLLP works, based upon possibly flawed logic, as a working model. Where are the years of work required to validate this hypothesis? I read the first post, and it jumped from the hypothesis to the conclusions, without much in between in the way of validated data.
John
Bekologist
mechBgon, thanks for taking the time to put some real world data up for scrutiny, it just shows me how visibility comes primarily from things like the hi-vis vest and good lights. Those couple of lateral feet from the distances in question are totally irrelevant.
hear, hear. a bicyclists cognitive conspicuity and absolute congification is maximized by visibility devices. lane positioning is an incredibly small nuance at distance, and a slight, small, inperceptable variant.
hear, hear. a bicyclists cognitive conspicuity and absolute congification is maximized by visibility devices. lane positioning is an incredibly small nuance at distance, and a slight, small, inperceptable variant.
sbhikes
To be fair, Serge has modified his theory over time. He's got it now limited to straight, ruralish roads with limited same-direction traffic. Precisely the situation when taking the lane isn't needed. A couple more adjustements to the theory and it'll be refined right into the trash where ite belongs.
LittleBigMan
I am open to any technique that increases safety for myself. Furthermore, I don't really see a problem with what you are doing when you use "DLLP," Serge.
But I am wondering, do you have any hard stats on the number of cyclist deaths that can be proven to be due to inadvertent drift? In other words, what proof do you have that "DLLP" addresses a real safety hazard, as opposed to an imagined one?
In addition, can you prove that "DLLP" is truly an effective remedy for inadvertent drift? You did say that "DLLP" was based on hypothesis, so I am asking if there is any proof supporting the need for it, and its overall effectiveness.
But I am wondering, do you have any hard stats on the number of cyclist deaths that can be proven to be due to inadvertent drift? In other words, what proof do you have that "DLLP" addresses a real safety hazard, as opposed to an imagined one?
In addition, can you prove that "DLLP" is truly an effective remedy for inadvertent drift? You did say that "DLLP" was based on hypothesis, so I am asking if there is any proof supporting the need for it, and its overall effectiveness.
Helmet Head
To John R, mech, etc., the specific time estimates given in the OP only apply to long straight roads with light traffic and good sight lines. It is assumed (but I'll state it explicitly when I get a chance) that the cyclist should adjust accordingly depending on any relevant factors and conditions, including but not limited to speed differentials, road width, traffic volume, sight lines, etc.
Helmet Head
I am open to any technique that increases safety for myself. Furthermore, I don't really see a problem with what you are doing when you use "DLLP," Serge.
But I am wondering, do you have any hard stats on the number of cyclist deaths that can be proven to be due to inadvertent drift? In other words, what proof do you have that "DLLP" addresses a real safety hazard, as opposed to an imagined one?
In addition, can you prove that "DLLP" is truly an effective remedy for inadvertent drift? You did say that "DLLP" was based on hypothesis, so I am asking if there is any proof supporting the need for it, and its overall effectiveness.
The only studies that I can think of that might be applicable is the recent one on bike lanes where they confirmed that motorists are much less likely to alter their path when they are separated from the cyclist they are overtaking by a stripe. Now, that particular study decided that was a good thing because the way they saw it, the stripe reduced motorist "swerving". But to me, that just shows how the stripe alleviates concern on the part of the motorist, the flipside of which is that it reduces the relevance of the cyclist on the other side of the stripe, which supports the first premise in the OP.
But I am wondering, do you have any hard stats on the number of cyclist deaths that can be proven to be due to inadvertent drift? In other words, what proof do you have that "DLLP" addresses a real safety hazard, as opposed to an imagined one?
In addition, can you prove that "DLLP" is truly an effective remedy for inadvertent drift? You did say that "DLLP" was based on hypothesis, so I am asking if there is any proof supporting the need for it, and its overall effectiveness.
The only studies that I can think of that might be applicable is the recent one on bike lanes where they confirmed that motorists are much less likely to alter their path when they are separated from the cyclist they are overtaking by a stripe. Now, that particular study decided that was a good thing because the way they saw it, the stripe reduced motorist "swerving". But to me, that just shows how the stripe alleviates concern on the part of the motorist, the flipside of which is that it reduces the relevance of the cyclist on the other side of the stripe, which supports the first premise in the OP.
John C. Ratliff
Helmet Head,
How about you set up some experiments, with controls, that validate your ideas? Gather some data, and let us take a look. It is easy to espouse theories, but without supporting evidence, we have nothing to go on but our own experience, which sometimes is in conflict with what you present. Give us something to really chew on to validate what you are saying.
John
How about you set up some experiments, with controls, that validate your ideas? Gather some data, and let us take a look. It is easy to espouse theories, but without supporting evidence, we have nothing to go on but our own experience, which sometimes is in conflict with what you present. Give us something to really chew on to validate what you are saying.
John
Helmet Head
Okay, John. But I need to understand what exactly you need validated. In particular, which premise or premises of the argument in the OP do you have trouble accepting, and what kind of experiment would help you accept it or them?
Helmet Head
Take a few logic and reasoning classes and edit the OP.
Yikes. 9 assumptions? In terms of necessity and sufficiency, you assert that the NINE assumptions must be taken on faith for the argument to be persuasive. If you take them to be necessary, which is what you've implied, and I reject what you label A, then your argument loses its so-called force. (In fact I do reject A).
If you want to formalize an argument, which you appear to want to do, at least use accepted terminology. You have premises and conclusions -- the section that you call "reasoning" appears to be what should be "conclusions". Arguments are described as valid and as sound -- validity is an assessment of the structure of an argument, soundness is an assessment of the truth of its premises. Show us the logical structure of your argument and demonstrate that the structure is valid. Then show us that your premises are true. Notice that if your premises are as complicated as those that you present, it will take further arguments to show this.
That said, I would advise against trying to come up with a deductive argument in favor of whatever you call your riding style.
It's not a theory.
It's not a hypothesis.
It's a technique.
Safe riding comes from developing a competency at using a wide variety of techniques, including but not limited to this one.
Sorry about not using the exact accepted terminology. It's an argument for the usefulness of a technique.
I contend the argument presented is valid (that is, the conclusions(s) follow from the premises). No argument has to be formalized at all to be evaluated for validity. Most (all?) other arguments presented in forums like this are totally informal, and yet can be evaluated for validity. I just decided to formalize mine a bit, particularly by explicitly identify the premises, for clarity.
The premises seem intuitively true to me. If you have an issue with one or more, please identify and explain.
For example, you reject premise A:
A. In a "ruralish" (non urban) environment on a quiet low traffic open highway with good sight lines, a potential obstacle up ahead in a motorist's intended path in his lane is much more likely to be relevant to that motorist than is the same object up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane.
If you believe, for example, that a tire lying up ahead in the shoulder of a road is as likely to be relevant to a motorist as is the same tire lying in his lane up ahead, I don't know how to convince you otherwise. It seems completely obvious to me that the tire in the shoulder is clearly less likely to be relevant to motorists, and I have no idea how to get you to see this if you don't already.
If nothing else, tires in lanes cause motorists to do something: avoid hitting it. Tires in shoulders usually have no effect on motorists: they proceed as if the tire is not even there: a tire in the shoulder is not nearly as relevant to a driver as is a tire in his lane.
Yikes. 9 assumptions? In terms of necessity and sufficiency, you assert that the NINE assumptions must be taken on faith for the argument to be persuasive. If you take them to be necessary, which is what you've implied, and I reject what you label A, then your argument loses its so-called force. (In fact I do reject A).
If you want to formalize an argument, which you appear to want to do, at least use accepted terminology. You have premises and conclusions -- the section that you call "reasoning" appears to be what should be "conclusions". Arguments are described as valid and as sound -- validity is an assessment of the structure of an argument, soundness is an assessment of the truth of its premises. Show us the logical structure of your argument and demonstrate that the structure is valid. Then show us that your premises are true. Notice that if your premises are as complicated as those that you present, it will take further arguments to show this.
That said, I would advise against trying to come up with a deductive argument in favor of whatever you call your riding style.
It's not a theory.
It's not a hypothesis.
It's a technique.
Safe riding comes from developing a competency at using a wide variety of techniques, including but not limited to this one.
Sorry about not using the exact accepted terminology. It's an argument for the usefulness of a technique.
I contend the argument presented is valid (that is, the conclusions(s) follow from the premises). No argument has to be formalized at all to be evaluated for validity. Most (all?) other arguments presented in forums like this are totally informal, and yet can be evaluated for validity. I just decided to formalize mine a bit, particularly by explicitly identify the premises, for clarity.
The premises seem intuitively true to me. If you have an issue with one or more, please identify and explain.
For example, you reject premise A:
A. In a "ruralish" (non urban) environment on a quiet low traffic open highway with good sight lines, a potential obstacle up ahead in a motorist's intended path in his lane is much more likely to be relevant to that motorist than is the same object up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane.
If you believe, for example, that a tire lying up ahead in the shoulder of a road is as likely to be relevant to a motorist as is the same tire lying in his lane up ahead, I don't know how to convince you otherwise. It seems completely obvious to me that the tire in the shoulder is clearly less likely to be relevant to motorists, and I have no idea how to get you to see this if you don't already.
If nothing else, tires in lanes cause motorists to do something: avoid hitting it. Tires in shoulders usually have no effect on motorists: they proceed as if the tire is not even there: a tire in the shoulder is not nearly as relevant to a driver as is a tire in his lane.
Helmet Head
Premises (these must be taken on faith or my argument will not be persuasive):
*bolding of 'faith' is mine.
A faith based belief is neither a hypothesis nor a theory, it's a religion or a cult. Furthermore, your premises are either irrelevant to your conclusions, or simply unfounded. Take the article in premise B for example. There is nothing in the article which indicates that positioning of the item of interest to us bears any relevance of our cognition of it - like the ground quickly approaching in the windscreen of an airliner and ground proximity warning sounding in the cockpit yet the pilot hit the ground. Interestingly, the article states that "Humans who hold a belief or expectation tend to seek evidence which confirms and ignore or avoid evidence which refutes." which sounds like a summary of many of your posts.
My conclusion is that you're promoting taking the lane needlessly then moving out of the travel lane as motorists approach, something which is impossible to do if there is no shoulder/WOL but would require moving onto the sidewalk (if there is one).
In my opinion you are conditioning motorists to expect any cyclist in the travel lane to move out of the lane for them so that the motorist donesn't need to adjust their lane position to accomodate the cyclist. You're in effect reinforcing the belief that cyclists either don't belong on the road or that motorists have absolute right of way over cyclists. So what happens when there is no shoulder or bike lane? the drivers' conditioned expectation is not met so becomes annoyed/agressive towards the cyclists.
Well, must be taken on "faith" was probably not the best choice of wording. I've changed it to:
Premises (to determine the validity of the argument, these are assumed to be true; to determine the soundness of the argument, it must be valid and these premises must be accepted to be true):
*bolding of 'faith' is mine.
A faith based belief is neither a hypothesis nor a theory, it's a religion or a cult. Furthermore, your premises are either irrelevant to your conclusions, or simply unfounded. Take the article in premise B for example. There is nothing in the article which indicates that positioning of the item of interest to us bears any relevance of our cognition of it - like the ground quickly approaching in the windscreen of an airliner and ground proximity warning sounding in the cockpit yet the pilot hit the ground. Interestingly, the article states that "Humans who hold a belief or expectation tend to seek evidence which confirms and ignore or avoid evidence which refutes." which sounds like a summary of many of your posts.
My conclusion is that you're promoting taking the lane needlessly then moving out of the travel lane as motorists approach, something which is impossible to do if there is no shoulder/WOL but would require moving onto the sidewalk (if there is one).
In my opinion you are conditioning motorists to expect any cyclist in the travel lane to move out of the lane for them so that the motorist donesn't need to adjust their lane position to accomodate the cyclist. You're in effect reinforcing the belief that cyclists either don't belong on the road or that motorists have absolute right of way over cyclists. So what happens when there is no shoulder or bike lane? the drivers' conditioned expectation is not met so becomes annoyed/agressive towards the cyclists.
Well, must be taken on "faith" was probably not the best choice of wording. I've changed it to:
Premises (to determine the validity of the argument, these are assumed to be true; to determine the soundness of the argument, it must be valid and these premises must be accepted to be true):
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.