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.
re: relevancy
Cyclists who ride in the correct position (i.e., near, but to the right of, the line) are much more relevant to overtaking motorists than a tire sitting on the shoulder.
Unlike a tire, cyclists are moving objects. Unlike a tire, cyclists are human beings. Unlike a tire, cyclists sometimes move left and right. Drivers know this, and take appropriate action most of the time (for the few who don't my mirror allows me to monitor them and take my own appropriate action as they approach).
We don't need to weave in and out of the travel lane to be seen by and relevant to motorists, and you have no evidence to back up your claims that doing so enhances cyclist safety.
royalflash
10-02-06, 12:45 PM
I haven´t read the whole thread and have doubts about the whole Forester-VC thing but it is possible HH has a point with the bike lane making cyclists less visible to car drivers. I was in my car last week and looked back in my mirror and realised I had just passed a cyclist in a narrow bike lane without really noticing her. I am not sure how close I got to her but normally I am very aware of cyclists and give them lots of room. The fact that she was in a narrow bike lane though did seem to have the effect of making her less visible to me. Not really evidence but just an observation.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 12:47 PM
re: relevancy
Cyclists who ride in the correct position (i.e., near, but to the right of, the line) are much more relevant to overtaking motorists than a tire sitting on the shoulder.
Unlike a tire, cyclists are moving objects. Unlike a tire, cyclists are human beings. Unlike a tire, cyclists sometimes move left and right. Drivers know this, and take appropriate action most of the time (for the few who don't my mirror allows me to monitor them and take my own appropriate action as they approach).
We don't need to weave in and out of the travel lane to be seen by and relevant to motorists, and you have no evidence to back up your claims that doing so enhances cyclist safety.
The premise in question,
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.
Is a general statement about any "potential obstacle". For it to be true, tires and cyclists do not have to be compared. In particular, it's comparing a tire in the shoulder to a tire in the lane, or a cyclist in the shoulder to a cylist in the lane, or a pedestrian in the shoulder to a pedestrian in the lane, or an orange cone in the shoulder to an orange cone in the lane.
It's about X in the shoulder vs. the same X in the lane.
It's not about comparing X in the lane to Y in the lane, or comparing X in the shoulder to Y in the shoulder (which is what you are doing in your explanation for rejecting A).
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 12:59 PM
I haven´t read the whole thread and have doubts about the whole Forester-VC thing but it is possible HH has a point with the bike lane making cyclists less visible to card drivers. I was in my car last week and looked back in my mirror and realised I had just passed a cyclist in a narrow bike lane without really noticing her. I am not sure how close I got to her but normally I am very aware of cyclists and give them lots of room. The fact that she was in a narrow bike lane though did seem to have the effect of making her less visible to me. Not really evidence but just an observation.
It's not proof, but it IS evidence in support of my theory.
I hasten to point out that if you hadn't looked in your rear view mirror and noticed the cyclist in the bike lane that you just passed without noticing, you would have never known how prone you are to overlooking cyclists in bike lanes. I submit most motorists, including motorists who are cyclists, pass cyclists in bike lanes and shoulders without noticing them, and without noticing that they didn't notice them. That's why it's so hard to believe that they could be easily overlooked. That is the nature of inattentional blindness.
Now, imagine if that cyclist had been in your lane up ahead before she moved into the bike lane prior to you overtaking her. Can you see how you would have been much less likely to miss noticing her?
Also, consider the point when you were a few seconds prior to overtaking her. Note that you were obviously unaware of her presence. Now imagine if you had the temptation to attend to a distraction at that point (for example, to change the radio station). Imagine how your awareness or lack thereof of the cyclist up ahead might affect your decision of whether or not to attend to that distraction right then. Don't you think you would have been more like to postpone your decision if you had been aware of the cyclist, until you passed her, if you were aware of your presence?
Can you see how a driver even less interested in cyclists than you, and one who is a bit more careless about attending to distractions longer than you, could have just as easily have overlooked the cyclist, and had decided to attend to a distraction at just the wrong moment, and, as a result, inadvertently drifted into the bike lane right as he was overtaking her? That's how inadvertent drift fatalities occur.
Finally, do you think if the cyclist had daytime flashers you could have still overlooked noticing her presence in the narrow bike lane?
mechBgon
10-02-06, 01:34 PM
It's not proof, but it IS evidence in support of my theory.
I hasten to point out that if you hadn't looked in your rear view mirror and noticed the cyclist in the bike lane that you just passed without noticing, you would have never known how prone you are to overlooking cyclists in bike lanes. I submit most motorists, including motorists who are cyclists, pass cyclists in bike lanes and shoulders without noticing them, and without noticing that they didn't notice them. That's why it's so hard to believe that they could be easily overlooked. That is the nature of inattentional blindness."Most," huh? Any factual evidence to back that up? :) Or just another attempt to force a card on people? I think the latter.
Actually, you can easily begin accumulating meaningful hard data by mounting a video camera on your dashboard, filming your car/RV trips, manually tallying the cyclists you notice, then reviewing the tape after each trip and seeing if you missed any.
sbhikes
10-02-06, 01:37 PM
While you are at it, why don't you tell us how many silver Honda Accords you passed on your way in today? Can't remember? Maybe you didn't notice them.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 01:47 PM
"Most," huh? Any factual evidence to back that up? :) Or just another attempt to force a card on people? I think the latter.
Actually, you can easily begin accumulating meaningful hard data by mounting a video camera on your dashboard, filming your car/RV trips, manually tallying the cyclists you notice, then reviewing the tape after each trip and seeing if you missed any.
Good idea, but I think that would be flawed, since the subject would know he's actually looking for cyclists (because he's trying to count them). That's making cyclists more relevant to the subject motorist than they would be to him if he was not participating in the study.
It's a very difficult phenomenon to measure.
Here's one idea:
Lay out a two mile route along a stretch of flat/straight 2 lane highway with a shoulder and good sight lines.
Arrange for two cyclists to be riding along that route. Cyclist A (dark jersey) in the first mile riding in the shoulder, Cyclist B (white jersey) in the second mile using DLLP. A and B switch roles with every subject. Also, cyclists start riding at exact same point for each subject.
Have each subject drive along the route. Prior to departure, tell subject he is to drive normally and to count how many oncoming cars he sees along the way. At departure signal cyclists to start riding at designated points.
After driving along the route, ask motorist how many oncoming cars he counted Then ask if he saw any same-directin cyclists, if so, how many, and to describe them. Then show him the video attached to his car to verify which if any of the cyclists he noticed.
Do this for 100 subjects or so.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 02:13 PM
See the OP of this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=233727) for more evidence of how bike lanes cause motorists to overlook cyclists.
Relevant excerpt:
...
The bike lanes are another source of frustration to motorists. Have you ever driven along some of Toronto’s streets that have bicycle lanes? Did you see any bicycles? I think I’ve seen a couple a few days ago.
...
Note the incredulity express in post #8:
...
no one using the bike lanes? um, hello, over here!
...
mechBgon
10-02-06, 02:14 PM
It's a very difficult phenomenon to measure.Evidently. :rolleyes:
I did something similar to my filming suggestion, although not enough to be statistically meaningful. I shot video for a couple hours while driving on the freeway during a vacation trip to Yellowstone National Park. The goal wasn't to watch for anything, I was shooting it to compress to 20x speed for the entertainment of my nephews and nieces (http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/nephews.jpg) later :) But I had a 100% detection rate (real life v. filmed evidence) for cars stopped on the shoulder, as it happens.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 02:17 PM
While you are at it, why don't you tell us how many silver Honda Accords you passed on your way in today? Can't remember? Maybe you didn't notice them.
This is a really good point.
I'm not sure how you could measure awareness. In particular, how can you ascertain whether a motorist is sufficiently aware of a cyclist up ahead for that to influence his decision to delay or shorten how much attention he gives to a distraction?
But in what I outlined, at least you could ascertain whether a given motorist is more likely to recall a cyclist using DLLP rather than a cyclist just staying in the shoulder or bike lane.
If there is a significant difference, then I think it would be safe to assume that less likely to recall means more likely to have overlooked. Maybe there is some other study that can show that separately?
mechBgon
10-02-06, 02:20 PM
BTW I can also remark from that Yellowstone trip that when I was in a car being driven by my parents, who are 65 and 74 years old with less-than-perfect eyesight, they did notice cyclists on the shoulder of the highway. The cyclists were a point of interest and discussion, not a piece of road debris, and were treated with deliberate caution.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 02:21 PM
Study or not, in nearly every drift fatality that I read about where the motorist is available, they say they did not notice the cyclist up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane. How much more evidence do you need?
What's the alternative? That they noticed the cyclist and decided to hit him anyway? I don't buy it.
mechBgon
10-02-06, 02:29 PM
Study or not, in nearly every drift fatality that I read about where the motorist is available, they say they did not notice the cyclist up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane. How much more evidence do you need?
What's the alternative? That they noticed the cyclist and decided to hit him anyway? I don't buy it.I bring back genec's discovery that most people in a collision were wearing clothing. ;) Is clothing therefore the cause of collisions? If there is a shoulder or a bike lane, most bicyclists use it. Therefore, most collisions where a motorist hits a cyclist from behind will be with a cyclist in a bike lane or shoulder, because there aren't many cyclists anywhere else if they have this option.
You also need to remember that only the lead vehicle in a pack is likely to benefit from your theoretical DLLP cognition advantage anyway. My highway filming reminds me how WHOA a stopped car, dangit and I'm boxed in! Can't change lanes, there wasn't enough warning time. At highway speeds, I want about 1/2 mile to line up a lane change, but when following a line of vehicles, it's all too easy to not get a line of sight even to something on the shoulder until it's too late to realistically do anything about it. And that assumes weather and light conditions allow me to see that far up the highway. Hence the Nova (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=202062) for ultra-range daytime visibility. And hence my usual choice of the "let-trouble-pass-me-by" shoulder lane position.
Maybe I'll dredge up the original videos and do some detailed analysis :) vrkelley already posted some impromptu data to this effect back in post #56, as well as a tally of all our known drift fatalities (a total of five) in post #37.
SSP
10-02-06, 02:41 PM
Study or not, in nearly every drift fatality that I read about where the motorist is available, they say they did not notice the cyclist up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane. How much more evidence do you need?
The fact that motorists didn't notice cyclists (or, claimed not to), does nothing to validate your theory re: DLLP.
I maintain that a cyclist riding assertively, about 12-18" right of the line, wearing conspicous clothing and/or with a daytime flasher, is every bit as conspicuous and relevant as the same cyclist weaving in and out of the traffic lane (i.e., DLLP).
Every single authority I've found has said that riding in a "predictable manner", "like a vehicle", is key to cyclist safety. Weaving back and forth, for no good reason (other than your unproven, untested, theory) seems useless at best, and possibly dangerous.
This has been explained to you in many, many posts and yet you persist...have you ever been assessed for OCD?
mechBgon
10-02-06, 02:51 PM
Hey SSP, didn't your co-worker have a remark about how noticable you were with your blinkie on in daytime, with the sun glaring? Maybe it bears repeating here :)
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 02:54 PM
SSP - I have explained to you many times, including in the OP of this thread, why the technique I describe is not weaving. Yet you persist to mischaracterize it as such... have you ever been assessed for OCD?
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 02:55 PM
Hey SSP, didn't your co-worker have a remark about how noticable you were with your blinkie on in daytime, with the sun glaring? Maybe it bears repeating here :)
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound. Please do not divert it with yet another thread about lights.
SSP
10-02-06, 02:58 PM
Hey SSP, didn't your co-worker have a remark about how noticable you were with your blinkie on in daytime, with the sun glaring? Maybe it bears repeating here :)
Yes...he was about 100 meters behind me, and we were both eastbound around 8 am. The sun had only been up for an hour, and was only about 20 degrees to the right of our direction of travel, so there was significant ambient backlight.
Despite the backlighting, my co-worker reported that his attention was drawn to the flashing of my Planet Bike Blinky Superflash (http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=PBBSF&tnum=3228066&c=4301586). Note: my co-worker noticed the flashing as soon as he turned onto the same street I was on...it's possible that he could have detected it from further away.
Since I purchased it a couple of weeks ago, I've been using the Superflash whenver I ride solo, day or night. I won't use it on a group ride, however, because it would be too irritating for someone riding behind me.
SSP
10-02-06, 02:59 PM
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound. Please do not divert it with yet another thread about lights.
You, lecturing about thread drift? Now that's funny! :rolleyes:
SSP
10-02-06, 03:02 PM
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound.
The vast majority of respondents, along with the vast majority of VC experts, seem to be in agreement that your theory has no validity, soundness, utility, or efficacy.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 03:04 PM
What's so funny? Whenever I'm asked to not divert a thread, I oblige.
Further, I created this thread precisely because this topic was diverting other threads.
mechBgon
10-02-06, 03:04 PM
Yes...he was about 100 meters behind me, and we were both eastbound around 8 am. The sun had only been up for an hour, and was about 20 degrees to my right, so there was significant ambient backlight.
Despite the backlighting, my co-worker reported that his attention was drawn to the flashing of my Planet Bike Blinky Superflash (http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=PBBSF&tnum=3228066&c=4301586).
Since I purchased it a couple of weeks ago, I've been using it whenver I ride solo, day or night. I won't use it on a group ride, however, because it would be too irritating for someone riding behind me.Actually if you put it so it fires from just under your seat bag, the rider drafting you can't see it directly.
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound. Please do not divert it with yet another thread about lights.Ooops, I thought we were working on real-world solutions to cyclist safety. Sorry! :o
sbhikes
10-02-06, 03:12 PM
Seriously, though, if you do practice DLLP and the person behind you isn't paying attention and is drifting, where do you go? What is your plan B?
mechBgon
10-02-06, 03:17 PM
Seriously, though, if you do practice DLLP and the person behind you isn't paying attention and is drifting, where do you go? What is your plan B?Illustrating this with a real-world example:
She was travelling up Fields Hill (the M13) when she noticed a cyclist ahead of her on the verge.
"I took my eyes off the road momentarily to get something from my handbag and lost concentration. When I looked up, the cyclist was in my path. I braked but I collided with him."The cyclist was seen, the motorist thought she was avoiding him, the motorist did something wrong, the motorist hit him anyway. If he'd been in her lane, and then POWERWEAVED (POWERWOVE?) his way onto the shoulder, it apparently wouldn't have made a difference.
John C. Ratliff
10-02-06, 03:27 PM
Study or not, in nearly every drift fatality that I read about where the motorist is available, they say they did not notice the cyclist up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane. How much more evidence do you need?
What's the alternative? That they noticed the cyclist and decided to hit him anyway? I don't buy it.
Helmet Head,
What a driver who's just injured or killed a cyclist says, and what actually happened, could be very different. This explaination is subjective, based upon what is in the best interest of the driver, and cannot be varified. Who would admit that they were asleep, for instance, or putting on makeup? I need evidence, not hearsay.
What's interesting here is that you are trying to get us to design an experiment for you which validates (or invalidates) your hypothesis; you are not interested in doing the legwork your self. I do not have time to do your experiment for you. Do it yourself, present your data, and we'll look at it. This is how science is done.
If you simply want to go on "logic," you may fall into the same traps that the people of the "Flat Earth Society" fell into in years past, saying that this or that is logical, which it may be to your frame of reference, without doing the legwork that folks like Galileo did to prove or disprove it.
Just because you can show that premise B follows from premise A doesn't mean that premise A is true, it only means that your logic is correct. In this case, show me how a cyclist four feet away from another can be more conspicuous at 100+ yards (and by the way, dress them the same way if you want to compare with only one variable).
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound.
The vast majority of respondents, along with the vast majority of VC experts, seem to be in agreement that your theory has no validity, soundness, utility, or efficacy.
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound.
Whether the argument is valid is about whether the conclusion(s) follow from the premises.
Whether the valid argument is sound is about whether the premises are acceptable (and if they're not, why).
She was travelling up Fields Hill (the M13) when she noticed a cyclist ahead of her on the verge.
"I took my eyes off the road momentarily to get something from my handbag and lost concentration. When I looked up, the cyclist was in my path. I braked but I collided with him."
The cyclist was seen, the motorist thought she was avoiding him, the motorist did something wrong, the motorist hit him anyway. If he'd been in her lane, and then POWERWEAVED (POWERWOVE?) his way onto the shoulder, it apparently wouldn't have made a difference.
This is more evidence supporting my theory that drivers discount the relevance of cyclists in the shoulder.
On the verge means the cyclist was in the shoulder. The driver decided the cyclist was irrelevant because they were "on the verge" (on the shoulder). That's why she allowed herself to look away from the road.
Note the point where she says "she noticed a cyclist ahead of her on the verge". Now imagine if at that point the cyclist was not on the verge, but in her lane. I submit she would not then decide to look for something in her purse. The reason she allowed herself to look in the purse is because the cyclist was "on the verge" - in the shoulder ... irrelevant.
Now, in this case the motorist did not drift into the shoulder, but the cyclist moved out of shoulder into the lane in the driver's path without establishing the right of way to do so. That's a different type of collision, but is strong support for Premise A of the argument presented in the OP.
mechBgon
10-02-06, 04:11 PM
This more evidence supporting my theory that drivers discount the relevance of cyclists in the shoulder.
On the verge means the cyclist was in the shoulder. The driver decided the cyclist was irrelevant because they were "on the verge" (on the shoulder). That's why she allowed herself to look away from the road.
Note the point where she says "she noticed a cyclist ahead of her on the verge". Now imagine if at that point the cyclist was not on the verge, but in her lane. I submit she would not then decide to look for something in her purse. The reason she allowed herself to look in the purse is because the cyclist was "on the verge" - in the shoulder ... irrelevant.
Now, in this case the motorist did not drift into the shoulder, but the cyclist moved out of shoulder into the lane in the driver's path without establishing the right of way to do so. That a different type of collision, but still makes my main point.Unfortunately, the motorist was at 8x the legal BAC for drunken driving, so I think that's more likely the reason she did something imprudent, not the cyclist's position on the road. And you have yet to address John C. Ratliff's question about drunk/stoned/sleeping motorists, don't you ;)
Incidentally, following on John's warning about reliance on logic alone, there are logical proofs that the Earth is hollow, with openings at the poles where the UFOs fly in and out. Quite logical, and quite silly. A friend of mine said he had a brother-in-law who that's all he could talk about. He found it a bit tiresome. :)
Is our Earth hollow? A hypothetical discussion (http://www.ufoarea.com/hollow_earth_forster.html)
Even Albert Einstein would not have been able to find any scientific fault with this concept, since he himself proved that all space is curved, as are all light-rays, thus, according to his Relativity theory, even a ray of light must eventually return to its starting-point! This concept itself implies that the Universe is as spherical and finite as our hollow globe. Einstein?s famous Theory of Relativity fits this idea of Teed?s to perfection, so if Einstein had ever examined Cyrus Teed?s inverted world-view, he would have had little choice but to accept it, since all of his own much-cherished cosmological ideas are demonstrated in it! This is why Teed?s theory is well-nigh impossible to disprove by the application of modern geometry and rules and laws of physical science.
Yay, logic. http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/bowdown.gif
SSP
10-02-06, 04:16 PM
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound.
Despite thousands of words written over many many posts, it looks like you have failed to convince anyone else of the validity or soundness of your theory.
Given that, either:
a) you're an unrecognized cycling genius whose theories will one day be recognized as the best way to handle "ruralish straight roads with broad shoulders and low traffic volumes and no intersections or driveways"
or,
b) you're wrong.
Based on my understanding of your theory of DLLP, and years of personal experience with VC, I'm voting for b).
mechBgon
10-02-06, 04:31 PM
Despite thousands of words written, over many many posts, it looks like you have failed to convince anyone else of the validity or soundness of your theory.
Given that, either:
a) you're an unrecognized cycling genius whose theories will one day be recognized as the best way to handle "ruralish straight roads with broad shoulders and low traffic volumes and no intersections or driveways"See this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3030214&postcount=77) for additional qualifiers (sun must not be low in the sky, visibility conditions must be good, rain is a special case, visibility equipment is "cr@p," etc). This is the thread where he is trying to peddle DLLP as a safety technique for grade-school kids riding to school on the bike lane of a 40mph arterial.
vrkelley
10-02-06, 04:40 PM
Heck after just being present in this forum for about a week....Wading through all the theory-mumbo-jumbo. The picutures, links to Toronto study, and my own timings are the first concrete stuff I've seen to even alert me that drift IS a problem. Fortunately, drift acicidents are rare-very-rare.
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 04:52 PM
Fortunately, drift acicidents are rare-very-rare.
Indeed they are. But they might not be quite as rare as we think.
How they got my attention was 2 or 3 drift accidents in a row in Sonoma County, CA a couple of years ago. In one case, a couple of cyclists pulled off into the shoulder to change their jackets or something.
At the time, I was just getting into VC and thinking a lot about the whole defensive driving idea of being responsible for preventing all kinds of collisions, even those where the motorist is 100% at fault.
So I thought, what can a cyclist do to prevent this type of collision? So I began to think about what the contributing factors were, and the one I kept coming up against was the driver having no idea the cyclist is even there. That's when I came up with this particular variation of DLLP on long straight stretches to get drivers' attention. After that, I started paying more attention to bike crashes when they're reported in the news, and was surprised at how often inadvertent drift seemed to be a factor. One problem is that no one normally looks for that in crash statistics and studies, and they don't get classified this way.
SSP
10-02-06, 05:03 PM
How they got my attention was 2 or 3 drift accidents in a row in Sonoma County, CA a couple of years ago. In one case, a couple of cyclists pulled off into the shoulder to change their jackets or something.
So, should we change our jackets in the middle of the road then? :D
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 05:05 PM
So, should we change our jackets in the middle of the road then? :D
Hey, if there is no traffic, why not? If a car is coming, get in the shoulder after it's almost impossible for them to not have noticed you.
It can't be any more dangerous to stand in the road during a gap than it is to cross the road during a gap.
SSP
10-02-06, 05:07 PM
Hey, if there is no traffic, why not? If a car is coming, get in the shoulder after it's almost impossible for them to not have noticed you.
It can't be any more dangerous to stand in the road during a gap than it is to cross the road during a gap.
And that will make us safer? :rolleyes:
Helmet Head
10-02-06, 05:11 PM
And that will make us safer? :rolleyes:
Safer than standing in the shoulder? Maybe. But getting well of the road, and shoulder, out of the drift zone, is probably better.
vrkelley
10-02-06, 05:14 PM
Indeed they are. But they might not be quite as rare as we think.
How they got my attention was 2 or 3 drift accidents in a row in Sonoma County, CA a couple of years ago. In one case, a couple of cyclists pulled off into the shoulder to change their jackets or something.
OK so the conclusion to this lonnnnng post is Drift crashes is more of a problem in heavier traffic on urbani-ish roads because:
1. Driver inattention
2. Leading cars block visability to the shoulder (where a ped or cyclist may be present)
3. Cyclist unpredictably moving in or out of the lane (not where driver remembered him last)
4. Cyclist with a poor signature i.e., lighting and clothing
buzzman
10-02-06, 10:22 PM
So, should we change our jackets in the middle of the road then?
Hey, if there is no traffic, why not? If a car is coming, get in the shoulder after it's almost impossible for them to not have noticed you.
It can't be any more dangerous to stand in the road during a gap than it is to cross the road during a gap.
Wow. 6 pages of rambling nonsense and it comes down to this kind of advice.
Please, please, please if you are a novice cyclist or seeking serious information seek out responsible advice before you get trapped in pseudo-science, imitations of logical reasoning, glossaries, catch phrases like "inadvertant drift collisions" and odd acronyms like "DLLP", which serve only to alienate riders and make them feel like they're out of some elite, yet completely unecessary, informational loop.
Kudos to SSP for asking a question which exposed the fallacies in these lame brained, dare I say, "theories".
vrkelley
10-02-06, 11:03 PM
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.
Bek, I don't know what a 10-mile cloth is but it sounds good. Probably prevents getting shot at :p --a good choice for WD road. Yes the Tolt trail is fantastic you can go from Seattle all of the way to Carnation. Last time I did that run, a rock put a big chip in the down tube.
Bekologist
10-03-06, 06:55 AM
...i could never find the tolt trail from the Duvall side, its not as obvious as the approach from woodinville and the trail. i rode the entire stretch, VR, from the ballparks and the brewery to the guy's driveway just off the Snoqualamie Valley, the bridge and Duvall. It went quick, like less than 45 minutes, on my rigid 29'er (TREK 520).
I did have to do a little POWERSWERVE on the trail, i guess that is Dynamic Lateral Trail Positioning.....i used DLTP to scare up some relevance from some horseback riders. I had congested trail in both directions, and i came over top of one of the hills and into a bridge cut doing about 20 and accellerating.....did the 'drunken biker' bit to rustle up some passing clearance.....
oh yes, 10-mile cloth - patented blaze orange is all. I think it was Dupont's color?
the hunter stuff :)
sorry, that's all off topic.
Visibility devices ARE more apparant than lane position at a distance. angular lane nuance of a bicyclist at more than a couple of hundred feet is a marginal, if not imperceptable difference... Mech's third picture of the bicyclist over a slight hill and curve illustrates that perfectly...
San Rensho
10-03-06, 07:29 AM
You have a sound theory, but are we tallking about a tempest in a tea pot? What percentage of car/bike accidents involve inadvertent drift collissions? I would venture to say they are very rare.
And whats the alternative? Are you suggesting that bicyclists take the lane, instead of ride on the shoulder, on highways that are posted at 55 mph where the real world speed is 60-80 MPH?
Helmet Head
10-03-06, 10:49 AM
You have a sound theory, but are we tallking about a tempest in a tea pot? What percentage of car/bike accidents involve inadvertent drift collissions? I would venture to say they are very rare.
In order to answer your question, we would have to know how many inadvertent drift collisions there are (which none of us know, since nobody tracks for this). But I would not simply look at the percentage of the total. The question I would think would be relevant to most of us here is: In what percentage of the fatalities of experienced cyclists killed in bike-car crashes during daylight hours outside of urban environments is inadvertent drift a factor? If you accept the soundness of my theory, then whether it is a tempest in a tea pot depends on how significant that percentage is.
But, the real reason I am pushing this is to counter the thinking that cyclists are safer by staying in bike lanes and shoulder. I say, get out there, get more conspicuous, pay more attention, and, yes, move aside when it's helpful to do so to allow faster traffic to pass, but don't feel like the margins of the road is where you belong simply because you're on a bike.
And whats the alternative? Are you suggesting that bicyclists take the lane, instead of ride on the shoulder, on highways that are posted at 55 mph where the real world speed is 60-80 MPH?
It depends on the relative speeds and the sight lines. If you're going 20 and they're going 60, the closing speed is 40, or about 60 feet per second. So if you can clearly see more than 600 feet back, then being out in the lane at 20 mph gives you more than 10 seconds to notice and move aside for 60 mph traffic, while giving them the opportunity to notice and pay attention to you as they overtake you.
But if you're going 5 mph up a hill, and they're going 80, and the sightlines are much less than 1000 feet, being out in the lane gets dicey. The kicker, though, is that if the sightlines are shortened due to a right curve, you can significantly lengthen the sight lines by moving out into the lane. Also, the sooner they see you, the sooner they are likely to slow down, and, thus, reduce the closing speed. So there is no perfect formula. You have to use your judgment. All I'm saying is don't just assume riding mindlessly in the shoulder or bike lane on a long straight empty road is necessarily the safest place for you to be.
The other reason to ride further left on these roads is to inhibit oncoming traffic from using your lane to pass slower traffic in their direction. When you keep to the right, shoulder or bike lane, it's a legal and practical gray area as to whether it's safe and reasonable for them to pass using the lane in your direction. But if you're out there in the lane, which you have every legal right to be in the absence of faster same-direction traffic, then your presence should keep oncoming traffic from passing in your lane (yes, you might have to play "chicken" with those who try to intimidate you into moving out of the way, and, of course, you should if they're adamant about it, but most of the time if you hold your ground they will desist). The alternative to that is you're just mindlessly riding along in the shoulder when suddenly someone is approaching you inches away at 70 mph in the opposite direction. We had a tragic cyclist death a couple of years with that exact scenario (the cyclist did not notice the oncoming pickup and shifted left into its path) - the driver was not prosecuted.
Finally, moving out into the traffic lane seems to be a great way to combat cyclist mindlessness. Doing so certainly helps me stay alert and paying attention to traffic rather than having my thoughts wander to who knows where. In contrast, riding in shoulders and particularly bike "lanes" seems to induce cyclist mindlessness.
vrkelley
10-03-06, 10:56 AM
Slightly off topic...Yes..That eastern end of the Tolt trail is closed (probably for ever). If anyone wants the map,
EDITED: See http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3158208
Brian Sorrell
10-03-06, 11:52 AM
This thread is about whether the argument in the OP is valid and sound.
Whether the argument is valid is about whether the conclusion(s) follow from the premises.
Whether the valid argument is sound is about whether the premises are acceptable (and if they're not, why).
Your commentary addresses neither.
Validity is an assessment of an argument's structure. Soundness is an assessment of the truth of an argument's premises.
You have provided no structure. If you do not understand what it is like to structure an argument, in terms of logic, then do not expect the notions of validity or soundness to attach what you have said. If you feel that you do understand the formal structure of arguments, then tell us what the structure of your argument is.
I reassert -- you have articulated the way in which you perform a certain technique, and endeavored to show occasions where that technique works well. This is useful, but it is not an argument. You should drop all formal talk about assessing an argument because you have not even provided an argument to assess.
Yes, I know, you think that you have. And you want to respond to me again to tell me that you have. But alas, you have not. No really. You have not. I triple dog dare you to show us the formal structure of what you think your "argument" is.
That silliness aside, I'm trying to help you here: drop the argument talk. Write a clear description of your technique. Show us where you find it effective. And leave it at that.
Safe cycling is not a deductive exercise.
Helmet Head
10-03-06, 12:31 PM
Validity is an assessment of an argument's structure. Soundness is an assessment of the truth of an argument's premises.
You have provided no structure. If you do not understand what it is like to structure an argument, in terms of logic, then do not expect the notions of validity or soundness to attach what you have said. If you feel that you do understand the formal structure of arguments, then tell us what the structure of your argument is.
Brian, you are confusing my informal argument in the OP with a formal logical argument. I suggest you review what an informal argument is:
Informal logic or non-formal logic is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language, as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in an artificial, formal, or technical language (see formal logic). Johnson and Blair (1987) define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation in everyday discourse."
Opinion pieces of newspapers provide illustrative textbook examples of informal logic (Walton 1989), usually because these pieces are short and often fallacious. However, informal logic is also used to reason about events in the human and social sciences. In fact, most reasoning from known facts to unknown facts that uses natural language, even if combined with mathematical or statistical reasoning, can be regarded as an application of informal logic so long as it does not rely on additional empirical evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
Also, you seem to presume that logical arguments require more structure then I have provided in the argument I presented in the OP. That is contrary to the common understanding of logical argument that I apparently share with Wikipedia editors:
In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation.
...
Argument validity
In evaluating an argument, we consider separately the truth of the premises and the validity of the logical relationships between the premises, any intermediate assertions and the conclusion. The main logical property of an argument that is of concern to us here is whether it is truth preserving, that is if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion. We will usually abbreviate this property by saying simply that argument is valid.
If the argument is valid, the premises together entail or imply the conclusion.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
I reassert -- you have articulated the way in which you perform a certain technique, and endeavored to show occasions where that technique works well. This is useful, but it is not an argument.
Have you read the OP? The OP is an attempt to show that the following conclusion is supported by the premises listed in the OP:
It is safer to be up ahead in the motorist's lane than up ahead in the shoulder or bike lane: you're more likely to be noticed, and therefore less likely to be inadvertently drifted into.
Now whether the argument succeeds to do this, and why or why not, is the subject of this thread. But whether it attempts to do this is not a reasonable question. Of course it does. It states that is it's purpose about as explicitly as is possible. To claim otherwise, that it is not an argument, is absurd (or depends on a definition of "argument" which you have not identified).
You should drop all formal talk about assessing an argument because you have not even provided an argument to assess.
WTF?
Yes, I know, you think that you have. And you want to respond to me again to tell me that you have. But alas, you have not. No really. You have not. I triple dog dare you to show us the formal structure of what you think your "argument" is.
According to what definition of "argument" is a formal structure required for something to be an argument? Regardless, I assure you, that is not the type of argument presented here. Never-the-less, what I presented in the OP IS a logical argument, at least per the description in Wikipedia, and it is certainly subject to the analysis of informal logic, including the assessment of the argument's validity and the soundness of the premises.
That silliness aside, I'm trying to help you here: drop the argument talk. Write a clear description of your technique. Show us where you find it effective. And leave it at that.
Describing the technique in detail is a topic for another thread. This thread is about whether using the technique in a particular type of circumstance is a good idea or not. The argument in the OP attempts to convince others that it is.
Safe cycling is not a deductive exercise.
No, but arguments about whether certain techniques are safer than others are deductive exercises.
SSP
10-03-06, 12:37 PM
Yet another Wall of Words(tm)...sigh.
Could somebody sum up the total amount of A&S bandwidth HH has consumed in his obsessive Quixotic quest to validate his "theory"?
Hey, HH - get a clue...nobody agrees with the validity or the soundness of your "theory".
mechBgon
10-03-06, 12:40 PM
LOL... not scientific enough for the scientist. Not realistic enough for the realist. And not logical enough for the logic specialist.
...but as flamebait, it's a masterpiece :) *goes to see if the original post has gotten even more convoluted*
SSP
10-03-06, 12:42 PM
Describing the technique in detail is a topic for another thread. This thread is about whether using the technique in a particular type of circumstance is a good idea or not. The argument in the OP attempts to convince others that it is.
What BS! We're supposed to decide whether or not the technique is effective at preventing cycling accidents when the technique cannot be described "in detail"?
FWIW, I think you have explained your technique in sufficient detail (ad naseum detail, actually). It seems that the clear consensus of opinion is that your technique is useless at best, or possibly dangerous.
Roughstuff
10-03-06, 12:44 PM
Yet another Wall of Words(tm)...sigh.
Could somebody sum up the total amount of A&S bandwidth HH has consumed in his obsessive Quixotic quest to validate his "theory"?
Hey, HH - get a clue...nobody agrees with the validity or the soundness of your "theory".
To hell with theory! Everyone get out and ride! Thats the best way to become a better biker and make life better for cyclists everywhere. :)
I don't think the 'theory' is diifficult...its just difficult to describe, in words, events on the road that may occur in just a few seconds but take paragraphs to describe.
roughstuff
sbhikes
10-03-06, 12:44 PM
Could somebody sum up the total amount of A&S bandwidth HH has consumed in his obsessive Quixotic quest to validate his "theory"?