Using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drift collisions

[SSP]

Sigh. You guys are too much.


Here "it" refers to the technique, not the argument. No reference to the premises, reasoning or conclusions, or anything stated in any of those sections. There is no evidence that you even read the argument in the OP, but are just talking about the technique as you understand it from other threads.


"That" refers to what you concluded in #1, which does not refer to the argument.
And "it" again refers to the technique, not anything stated in the argument presented in the OP.
You're 0 for 2.


Again "it" refers to the technique, not anything stated in the argument presented in the OP. 0 for 3.


Again, "it" refers to the technique, not anything stated in the argument presented in the OP. 0 for 4.


Again, "it" refers to the technique, not anything stated in the argument presented in the OP. 0 for 5.


This indicates that you actually did not read the OP, since you are using the term "weaving" contrary to how it's clearly defined in the argument. 0 for 6.


This clearly has nothing to do with the argument itself. 0 for 7.

Like I said, you didn't even address the argument, much less explain WHY you think it's not valid or not sound.

Do you understand the difference between the technique and the argument presented in the OP? The latter is what I'm looking for you to address. Thanks.


HH - you're so hard-headed I doubt you even need a helmet.

You asked *me* for reasons why I don't find *it* persuasive. Through a series of convoluted arguments and premises, you claim that DLLP enhances safety. I, and others, doubt that very much and have provided you with our reasoning as to why we think DLLP does not improve cyclist safety and may, in fact, be dangerous. You continually choose to ignore the substance of our arguments and instead childishly insist that we distinguish between the "technique" and the "argument".

It seems like all you're really interested in is "arguing"...clearly you have no real interest in real-world cycling safety.

[SSP]

In this thread, please address the argument presented in the OP. How many times do I have to ask you to take your lights issue to some other thread?

Translation: "my way, my way, my way...waaah!"

[mechBgon]

In this thread, please address the argument presented in the OP. How many times do I have to ask you to take your lights issue to some other thread?The topic of lights & visibility came up again because :rolleyes: someone:rolleyes: , back in post #180 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3159715&postcount=180), dragged in the topic of a cyclist killed in a collision at night. And day or night, the first element of your being noticed is still to be visually detectable, which as SSP related in post #118 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3153158&highlight=superflash#post3153158), is easily improved with a small $20 strobe.

You actually want some honest input on your technique? Here it is: If you really want to propose your DLLP technique to avoid rear collision, you should be recommending daytime-visible lights (http://www.biketiresdirect.com/productdetail.asp?p=PBBSF&tnum=2820719&c=3758772) and a highly-visible outer layer on your body. The first step in your DLLP routine should be to actually BE SEE-ABLE. If you want anyone to take you seriously, start LISTENING and LEARNING, instead of just trying to guard your Precious from all criticisms while clutching at straws when someone says something vaguely supportive.

[Helmet Head]

HH - you're so hard-headed I doubt you even need a helmet.

You asked *me* for reasons why I don't find *it* persuasive. Through a series of convoluted arguments and premises, you claim that DLLP enhances safety. I, and others, doubt that very much and have provided you with our reasoning as to why we think DLLP does not improve cyclist safety and may, in fact, be dangerous. You continually choose to ignore the substance of our arguments and instead childishly insist that we distinguish between the "technique" and the "argument".

It seems like all you're really interested in is "arguing"...clearly you have no real interest in real-world cycling safety.
I know that it might appear that way. And, obviously, I do enjoy debate. But I don't enjoy pointless debate, not at all. For example, I have no interest in defending a position I don't agree with. I also despise semantic debates (though I don't mind pointing out that a given debate is merely a semantic debate). And I do have real interest in real-world cycling safety. And I do honestly believe this technique makes me safer. It's very obvious to me, but I do have a hard time explaining exactly how and why in words. Video would probably be most effective, but I don't have that. So, for now, we're limited by words. So I've tried to explain why the technique is beneficial in the OP.

So, SSP, please, humor me. Read the one and only one argument this thread is supposed to about, the one in the OP, and tell me what you think specifically about that argument, as presented in the OP. If nothing comes of it, fine, I'll eat crow. It won't be the first or last time.

[Helmet Head]

You actually want some honest input on your technique?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! CAN'T ANYONE READ??? NO, I DO NOT WANT SOME HONEST INPUT ON MY TECHNIQUE!!!

I WANT HONEST INPUT ON THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE OP.

If you're unable or unwiling to provide that, PLEASE GO TO SOME OTHER THREAD.

[SSP]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! CAN'T ANYONE READ??? NO, I DO NOT WANT SOME HONEST INPUT ON MY TECHNIQUE!!!

I WANT HONEST INPUT ON THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE OP.

If you're unable or unwiling to provide that, PLEASE GO TO SOME OTHER THREAD.

We mostly don't give a crap about your silly "arguments"...it's your silly technique (that you claim enhances cyclist safety) that we object to.

Sorry that causes you so much distress, but this is a "cycling" forum, not a "debate" forum. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

If you really want to propose your DLLP technique to avoid rear collision, ...
Mech, how many times do I have to write that that the PRIMARY purpose of the technique is NOT to avoid rear collision?

The primary purpose of presenting the technique is to defuse, if you will, the prevalent thinking of most cyclists that they need to keep to the side because they are safer from same-direction overtaking traffic there. I'm trying to turn that thinking on its head, to get cyclists away from the side of the road IN ALL KINDS OF SITUATIONS so they're out there where they have better sight lines to potential cross traffic obstacles, and where they are more visible and predictable.

That's why the ARGUMENT in the OP is so important, and no so much the technique itself. If one accepts the argument, then he can't believe he's safer from same-direction traffic by keeping to the right for no other reason.
That's why I want to know if the argument is persuasive, and, if it's not, why it's not.

That you'll be even more visible with this or that flasher is beside the point, and has nothing to do with this argument, the reason I push and use this technique, or anything in this thread. Okay?

[Blue Order]

We mostly don't give a crap about your silly "arguments"...it's your silly technique (that you claim enhances cyclist safety) that we object to.Nail. Head. Hit.

[mechBgon]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! CAN'T ANYONE READ??? NO, I DO NOT WANT SOME HONEST INPUT ON MY TECHNIQUE!!!

I WANT HONEST INPUT ON THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE OP.

If you're unable or unwiling to provide that, PLEASE GO TO SOME OTHER THREAD.Ohhhh! The purple color makes it much clearer now. Ok, here you go: your argument is too complicated for most newbies to get very far. And you can take that from someone who's dealt with a LOT of newbies :)

Apply the K.I.S.S. rule*. I mean heck, I could summarize DLLP better than you do, although it would go more like "ok, when the cars are still a ways back, PRETEND YOU'RE DRUNK! :D Ride right in the middle of the lane even though it's unnecessary! They'll give you LOTS of room because if they hit you, there'd be tons of paperwork and their car might get damaged! :) When they get close, make a drunken weave over to the bike lane or shoulder! Then do it again for the next cars! :)"

And some will laugh, but actually the previous paragraph illustrates something: it illustrates the fallacy of trying to exclude all other hypotheses in favor of your own. My simple interpretation of why motorists will avoid the cyclist could be much more likely than a fancy, convoluted one that sprang from someone with an obsession about being noticed. Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor), for those interested in the scientific equivalent of the K.I.S.S. rule :)


*the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" rule, for those of you who aren't native English speakers

[Helmet Head]

We mostly don't give a crap about your silly "arguments"...:
Why would you hang out in a thread where you don't give a crap about the topic?

Please, contribute, or go away.

[vrkelley]

I never understood how Advocacy & Safety forum turned into the elite Debate Club. You want more arguing input...rather than settling on technique that saves lives?? That's illogical.

Stop addressing naked bikers and get to the naked truth. Go prove your theory.

[Blue Order]

Why would you hang out in a thread where you don't give a crap about the topic?You mean like some guy who would hijack a thread because he wants to talk about HIS favorite topic, instead of the thread topic? :lol:

[Blue Order]

I never understood how Advocacy & Safety forum turned into the elite Debate Club. You want more arguing input...rather than settling on technique that saves lives?? That's illogical.

Stop addressing naked bikers and get to the naked truth. Go prove your theory.I'll bet if we had more naked bikers, there'd be more conspicuity. :D

[SSP]

Why would you hang out in a thread where you don't give a crap about the topic?

Because this is a cycling forum, and I'm interested in cycling "Advocacy and Safety"...duh!

Please, contribute, or go away.

Translation..."my way or the highway".

FWIW, I believe I have been contributing to this discussion of a theoretical technique for enhancing cycling safety. The fact that I won't address the topic in the specific, narrowly defined way that you so desperately desire is irrelevant.

[mechBgon]

Oh, and If one accepts the argument, then he can't believe he's safer from same-direction traffic by keeping to the right for no other reason.Well, then few people are going to accept the argument, because we know from firsthand experience that we could overlook an overtaking car or motorcycle, and the driver could overlook us, and we'd get run over. Or we could provoke a road-rage incident, as bmclaughlin807 has already had happen to him (for example) and I have too. So your argument runs into that nasty obstacle called a Reality Check when people are evaluating it for real-world merit.

We also know that we can wield an attention-getting visibility solution (hi-vis gear, daytime-visible lights) from the shoulder or bike lane. Empirical observations by disinterested parties show that it really is a good way to get attention when being overtaken, and likely more effective than lane position. Trying to banish the discussion of this alternative only renders your argument useless to us, because it ceases to address the real world where we do have that alternative. You can't defend your idea by snuffing everyone else's.

[Blue Order]

Oh, and Well, then few people are going to accept the argument, because we know from firsthand experience that we could overlook an overtaking car or motorcycle, and the driver could overlook us, and we'd get run over. Or we could provoke a road-rage incident, as bmclaughlin807 has already had happen to him (for example) and I have too. So your argument runs into that nasty obstacle called a Reality Check when people are evaluating it for real-world merit.

We also know that we can wield an attention-getting visibility solution (hi-vis gear, daytime-visible lights) from the shoulder or bike lane. Empirical observations by disinterested parties show that it really is a good way to get attention when being overtaken, and likely more effective than lane position. Trying to banish the discussion of this alternative only renders your argument useless to us, because it ceases to address the real world where we do have that alternative. You can't defend your idea by snuffing everyone else's.Visibility by positioning vs. visibility by color and lighting choices. Only one of those strategies places the rider directly in harm's way, and one of those strategies keeps the rider directly out of harm's way.

By the way, my strategy begins with making the bike visible, and proceeds from there....

[SingingSabre]

Why would you hang out in a thread where you don't give a crap about the topic?

Please, contribute, or go away.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle...well...nevermind...

Look, HH, your pseudo-technique has little it can be applied to in real life situations. I think you should really think hard about continuing to post about it. You really have only one or two people you've convinced, and even they don't seem to take to it the same way you do.

I wish we could call a meeting of the tribunal and have a vote...

[saraflux]

If they have identical jersey colors, how do you determine if the participants noticed the cyclists?

I figure if you alternate their roles, you could control for that one variable.

in order for an experiment to be scientific and valid, you must use the exact same conditions in every aspect except that which you are testing.
if their jerseys are different colors, you are setting yourself up for your results to be challenged based on the idea that perhaps the 'DLLP' is not the reason the cyclist was visible. maybe it was the white jersey.
make sense?


i am amazed at your ability, HH, to split hairs (re: the 'technique' vs. 'argument' posts) in order to avoid addressing the problems that others have with your "theory". you would make an excellent politician.

btw, this is one of the most entertaining things i have ever found. i started out on this forum looking for info and tips since i am a newbie, but i find that i have rarely been so enthralled by something so.... hmmm. how do you say?.... silly?hard-headed?... i don't know... i guess i am drawn to this thread the same way i'm drawn to 'jackass' reruns.

[joejack951]

Oh, and Well, then few people are going to accept the argument, because we know from firsthand experience that we could overlook an overtaking car or motorcycle, and the driver could overlook us, and we'd get run over. Or we could provoke a road-rage incident, as bmclaughlin807 has already had happen to him (for example) and I have too. So your argument runs into that nasty obstacle called a Reality Check when people are evaluating it for real-world merit.

I read about bmclaughlin807's incident and also looked through some other posts by him about his actions in traffic. It comes as no surprise that he would encounter someone willing to hit him for "no reason." Perhaps their "reason" was previously seeing some of his actions. If you want quotes, I'll go find them. His incident is a bad example for your argument of why not to use DLLP.

Promoting riding out of the way of motorists for fear of insitgating road rage is hardly safe cycling advocacy, Mech. If you transfer that advice to roadways where it is not safe to try and ride out of the way the results can be pretty disastrous.

And again you start with the "you'll get run over if we miss a car" argument. This argument is so weak. If it had any validity, you should quickly be making a website telling cyclists not to ride on NOL roads as they will surely get runover if they do since every passing car must notice them.

[joejack951]

in order for an experiment to be scientific and valid, you must use the exact same conditions in every aspect except that which you are testing.
if their jerseys are different colors, you are setting yourself up for your results to be challenged based on the idea that perhaps the 'DLLP' is not the reason the cyclist was visible. maybe it was the white jersey.
make sense?

If you read his post, HH suggested alternating the roles of the cyclists wearing two different color jerseys. The idea here would be to try and isolate the effects of wearing a certain color jersey and riding DLLP. If he just had one cyclist wearing one color jersey riding DLLP and not, everyone would want to know what would happen when that cyclist wore a different color jersey. If you add in any other variable, all you need to do to make the test valid is to experiment using every possible combination of variable to isolate the effects of each variable.

[John C. Ratliff]

But you are testing the DLLP technique, and not the color, so you need to test using only one variable at a time.

John

[sbhikes]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! CAN'T ANYONE READ??? NO, I DO NOT WANT SOME HONEST INPUT ON MY TECHNIQUE!!!

I WANT HONEST INPUT ON THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE OP.

If you're unable or unwiling to provide that, PLEASE GO TO SOME OTHER THREAD.

Wow that's the funniest thing I've ever read here!

It all makes sense now, though. He just wants to work his theory out with discussion, not with actual practice.

Here's a deal: We won't bother your thread with real world experience if you won't bother our threads with theories. Next time some baby-baced 12 year old kid gets killed keep your unproven arguments and theories to yourself. They have no basis in experience, they are only word puzzles.

[joejack951]

But you are testing the DLLP technique, and not the color, so you need to test using only one variable at a time.

John

Test #1: Cyclist in white rides DLLP.
Test #2: Cyclist in white rides in bike lane.
Test #3: Cyclist in black rides DLLP.
Test #4: Cyclist in black rides in bike lane.

Add more variables, add more tests. Compare results of each individual variable in addition to combinations and find the variable with the best results and/or the best combination.

The only variable that would be impossible to keep constant would be the actual traffic since replicating motorists on the roads and their individual speeds would be impossible to do without staging the entire test. The best you could would be to do the test at the same time of day (or with the sun at the same position) on the same day of the week.

[Bekologist]

Now, just hold on a second here!!!!

This thread isn't about bicycling, its about arguing?

I think Sbikes deal sounds fair:

In threads about actual safety and biking issues, helmet head keeps his theories to himself, and in helmet head's threads about theories, everyone keeps actual bicycling and experience out of it....

[Bekologist]

joejack, to make visibility equipment even MORE relevant, substitute:

"ANSI rated safety vest, slo-mo triangle and daytime visible strobe" for "white"

[royalflash]

And I do honestly believe this technique makes me safer. It's very obvious to me, but I do have a hard time explaining exactly how and why in words. Video would probably be most effective, but I don't have that. So, for now, we're limited by words.

HH: can't you buy a video camera (they are quite cheap now) or borrow one from a friend? I have great difficulty visualising how I would apply DLLP in reality and would be interested to see how you do it. It would be worth it perhaps.

[Bekologist]

...I'm envisioning a guy riding a bike, making minor positioning changes we ALL do, albiet in a assbackwards way (ride left, merge right versus the standard accepted ride right, merge left) and considering it some kind of brilliance, all the while placing himself in exponentially more danger than shooting a predictable line while riding and adjusting for actual hazards or sightlines.

[joejack951]

joejack, to make visibility equipment even MORE relevant, substitute:

"ANSI rated safety vest, slo-mo triangle and daytime visible strobe" for "white"

Ok, so add in another set of tests where you isolate for each one of those variables you just added.

[Bekologist]

I'm not the one running the tests, i'm just making suggestions as to what really is more effective to provide absolute cognification of bicyclists by drivers....

[joejack951]

...I'm envisioning a guy riding a bike, making minor positioning changes we ALL do, albiet in a assbackwards way (ride left, merge right versus the standard accepted ride right, merge left) and considering it some kind of brilliance, all the while placing himself in exponentially more danger than shooting a predictable line while riding and adjusting for actual hazards or sightlines.

DLLP is not minor adjustments in road position. Like I described before, my position will vary by ~10 feet depending on the width of the lane/shoulder. If I'm in the lane, I'm centered in the lane. If I'm not trying to be in the lane, I'm off to the side with at least 3 feet between me and where the passing traffic is.

I use minor adjustments when riding in NOL lanes for a number of different reasons but that has more to do with just being assertive and nothing to do with DLLP.

For the record, DLLP has nothing to do with brilliance unless you consider it brilliant simply because very few cyclists actually ride that way. In my state, the surrounding states, and in the UVC, it's the recommended method of operation for slow moving vehicles (including bicycles in most cases) with additional considerations for courtesy. The argument presented by HH for using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drifts is just another point for validation of the technique (just in case you thought the law makers had it all wrong).

[joejack951]

I'm not the one running the tests, i'm just making suggestions as to what really is more effective to provide absolute cognification of bicyclists by drivers....

No problem, I'm just keeping it "real" and trying to include variables that in "reality" most cyclists will be willing to put into practice. I don't care who's running the tests. I just want to make sure that whoever does the tests accounts for each one of the variables that they add instead of lumping them altogether and comparing that against nothing.

[Helmet Head]

DLLP is not minor adjustments in road position. Like I described before, my position will vary by ~10 feet depending on the width of the lane/shoulder. If I'm in the lane, I'm centered in the lane. If I'm not trying to be in the lane, I'm off to the side with at least 3 feet between me and where the passing traffic is.

I use minor adjustments when riding in NOL lanes for a number of different reasons but that has more to do with just being assertive and nothing to do with DLLP.

For the record, DLLP has nothing to do with brilliance unless you consider it brilliant simply because very few cyclists actually ride that way. In my state, the surrounding states, and in the UVC, it's the recommended method of operation for slow moving vehicles (including bicycles in most cases) with additional considerations for courtesy. The argument presented by HH for using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drifts is just another point for validation of the technique (just in case you thought the law makers had it all wrong).
:beer:

Only a slight nit. I do consider minor and seemingly subtle adjustments when riding in NOLs as part of DLLP. DLLP, in general, is using and adjusting lateral position in all kinds of traffic conditions; that includes minor adjustments in NOLs as well as the major adjustments moving between the primary and secondary riding positions in lanes wide enough to be shared, depending on the presence of faster same-direction traffic.

[Helmet Head]

Test #1: Cyclist in white rides DLLP.
Test #2: Cyclist in white rides in bike lane.
Test #3: Cyclist in black rides DLLP.
Test #4: Cyclist in black rides in bike lane.

Add more variables, add more tests. Compare results of each individual variable in addition to combinations and find the variable with the best results and/or the best combination.

The only variable that would be impossible to keep constant would be the actual traffic since replicating motorists on the roads and their individual speeds would be impossible to do without staging the entire test. The best you could would be to do the test at the same time of day (or with the sun at the same position) on the same day of the week.
What I was thinking:

Test #1: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #2: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #3: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #4: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.
...
Test #99: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #100: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.

At the end of each test ask the participant how many oncoming cars they counted, and, by the way, did they notice any cyclists. If so, where and what color jerseys were they wearing? So, the reason to wear the different jerseys is to allow even color blind participants a way to identify the cyclists that they noticed. Maybe they should also have distinctive patterns on the jerseys.

NOTE:
Using DLLP here means the cyclist would adjust his lateral lane position depending on the presence of faster same-direction traffic.

SLLP = static lateral lane positions - cyclist just maintains his lateral position in the bike lane or shoulders without adjusting in response to the presence or absence of same direction traction)

[mechBgon]

And again you start with the "you'll get run over if we miss a car" argument. This argument is so weak. If it had any validity, you should quickly be making a website telling cyclists not to ride on NOL roads as they will surely get runover if they do since every passing car must notice them.It does have validity. Whether "every" passing car will hit them, chances are highly elevated in conditions such as shbikes reports in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=233971). And even Helmet Head seems to have stipulated that you don't try DLLP when the sun is low. Riding out of the path of traffic is still not a guarantee of safety, but unless you consider yourself infallible, it would be foolish to get into the middle of the lane in hopes of being seen so that you don't get hit.

That's the real world. And if "most" motorists are overlooking cyclists and not even realizing it, as HH says in this thread, then it stands to reason that "most" cyclists could overlook motorists too, doesn't it. Gotcha.

If you want to try to discredit bmclaughlin807, go for it. But he's not the only person who's been the target of anti-cyclist road rage, nor am I. You know it exists if you've read BF for a while.

That's all I have time for this morning. Have fun, kids :)

[mechBgon]

What I was thinking:

Test #1: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #2: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #3: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #4: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.
...
Test #99: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #100: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.

At the end of each test ask the participant how many oncoming cars they counted, and, by the way, did they notice any cyclists. If so, where and what color jerseys were they wearing? So, the reason to wear the different jerseys is to allow even color blind participants a way to identify the cyclists that they noticed. Maybe they should also have distinctive patterns on the jerseys.

NOTE:
Using DLLP here means the cyclist would adjust his lateral lane position depending on the presence of faster same-direction traffic.

SLLP = static lateral lane positions - cyclist just maintains his lateral position in the bike lane or shoulders without adjusting in response to the presence or absence of same direction traction)How would this be representative of real drivers? Real drivers aren't out there trying to drive a car while focusing their attention on a car-counting task, diverting their attention away from noticing cyclists. Bad science. Maybe a professional can give you some advice... where's John C. Ratliff?

[vrkelley]

Cyclist = Helmet Head??

What I was thinking:

Test #1: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #2: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #3: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #4: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.
...
Test #99: Cyclist in white rides DLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides SLLP on 2nd half of route.
Test #100: Cyclist in white rides SLLP on first half of route; cyclist in black rides DLLP on 2nd half of route.

At the end of each test ask the participant how many oncoming cars they counted, and, by the way, did they notice any cyclists. If so, where and what color jerseys were they wearing? So, the reason to wear the different jerseys is to allow even color blind participants a way to identify the cyclists that they noticed. Maybe they should also have distinctive patterns on the jerseys.

NOTE:
Using DLLP here means the cyclist would adjust his lateral lane position depending on the presence of faster same-direction traffic.

SLLP = static lateral lane positions - cyclist just maintains his lateral position in the bike lane or shoulders without adjusting in response to the presence or absence of same direction traction)

[Helmet Head]

How would this be representative of real drivers? Real drivers aren't out there trying to drive a car while focusing their attention on a car-counting task, diverting their attention away from noticing cyclists. Bad science. Maybe a professional can give you some advice... where's John C. Ratliff?
Oh, yeah, like asking drivers to pay attention to oncoming traffic is so artificial. :rolleyes:

Edit: okay, if you're picturing a busy highway, then counting oncoming cars would be a significant chore. But I'm picturing a lightly traveled 2 lane ruralish highway, perhaps on a weekend morning, where there would be less than a handful of cars to count on the 2 mile (or so) test route.

But if counting cars is not acceptable, what do you suggest? The point is to use the common technique of telling participants the test is for X when it's really for Y. The gorilla/basketball study is one example of doing that. Another was shown on 20/20 last week, where college students were interviewed, but prior to each interview they were asked to wait in a small cluttered office. Turned out the interview was to ask them about what they remembered about the content of the cluttered office in which they waited (females did much better than males at recalling specific details).

Another purpose is to simulate giving drivers something specific to occupy their minds, on the assumption that drivers's minds are often preoccupied.

How about giving the drivers a reasonable "rally style" time to complete the route, thinking they're in a contest to see who could come in closest to the target? They don't have a clock or watch, so they have to concentrate on making sure they maintain the correct avg mph, which would coincide with the speed limit. So all they have to concentrate on is driving the speed limit. Is that too artificial?

[mechBgon]

Oh, yeah, like asking drivers to pay attention to oncoming traffic is so artificial. :rolleyes:Paying attention is different from keeping a running tally of the number of vehicles. And the fact is, that's a weakness in your measurement technique too. If I ride through downtown and see a bunch of bicycle commuters, I won't be able to say "yeah, there were exactly 7 today," I'll just report "quite a few." But I'll still see them and deal with them safely in traffic.

[Helmet Head]

Paying attention is different from keeping a running tally of the number of vehicles. And the fact is, that's a weakness in your measurement technique too. If I ride through downtown and see a bunch of bicycle commuters, I won't be able to say "yeah, there were exactly 7 today," I'll just report "quite a few." But I'll still see them and deal with them safely in traffic.
Yes, Diane noted this earlier when she asked how many silver Camry's we saw today. The fact that we can't recall a single one is not evidence that we didn't notice any.

BUT, if there is a high correlation of the number of drivers specifically remembering the cyclist using DLLP over the number of drivers who also remember the cyclist using SLLP, and no correlation to jersey color, wouldn't that tell you that the DLLP cyclist is more likely to be noticed?

For example, if the results were the following, would that be convincing to you?

5% specifically recalled neither cyclist.
1% recalled the SLLP cyclist but not the DLLP cyclist
45% recalled the DLLP cyclist but not the SLLP cyclist
49% recalled the SLLP cyclist and the DLLP cyclist

(94% recalled the DLLP cyclist; 50% recalled the SLLP cyclist)

[SSP]

Yes, Diane noted this earlier when she asked how many silver Camry's we saw today. The fact that we can't recall a single one is not evidence that we didn't notice any.

BUT, if there is a high correlation of the number of drivers specifically remembering the cyclist using DLLP over the number of drivers who also remember the cyclist using SLLP, and no correlation to jersey color, wouldn't that tell you that the DLLP cyclist is more likely to be noticed?

For example, if the results were the following, would that be convincing to you?

5% specifically recalled neither cyclist.
1% recalled the SLLP cyclist but not the DLLP cyclist
45% recalled the DLLP cyclist but not the SLLP cyclist
49% recalled the SLLP cyclist and the DLLP cyclist

(94% recalled the DLLP cyclist; 50% recalled the SLLP cyclist)

What relationship does the ability to "recall" have with the issue of "safety"?

Last week while driving through a busy urban intersection, a drunk walked out into traffic against the light and several of us had to brake suddenly to avoid him. We all certainly "recall" his presence, and he certainly was both "relevant" and "conspicuous"...but, that doesn't mean his "technique" enhanced his safety.

[Brian Sorrell]

HH, you clearly don't get that I'm trying to help you here. I'm trying to show you that codifying your point in what you choose to call an "argument" -- and it isn't, and yes my credentials count when it comes to saying what is and isn't a good argument -- is not the best way to make your point. If you had a more robust understanding of informal reasoning and deductive reasoning, you'd have an easier time seeing my point.

Let me try this, because it's modeled on my favorite Critical Thinking technique: Argument to the best explanation.

Start by posing a question that we can all agree is important. For example, you would likely ask "How can cyclists make themselves visible to distracted drivers?" Most of us in this forum will probably agree that this is an important question to ask. I sure do. (Notice, it is not a yes/no question so that we can generate more interesting answers.)

Legitimate answers to this question include:
Take the lane.
Use very bright lights.
DLLP.
Set the bicycle on fire.
etc.

See -- there are lots of ways to make yourself visible. Obviously, I threw in a couple of silly ones to make the point.

To make your case, you need to show why your preferred solution -- DLLP -- is superior to the others. To do this, you could appeal to things like statistics, or photographs, or some other conceptual apparatus. This, my friend, is an exercise in informal logic or critical thinking. What you presented in the OP is simply sloppy.

In fact, I do think that your technique is an effective one, and I frequently find myself doing things like it without rigid, deductive reasons to do so. However, it is not always the wisest technique to use, and it does not always work.

So to the point that I was trying to make hundreds of posts ago: show us where you feel that it's an effective technique and from that, we can sharpen our competence at using it. Now that's helpful. You'll win supporters with an approach like that. Pretending that you're engaging in deductive reasoning will buy you exactly what you got here -- a festering heap of hostility.

Now don't be petty and try to throw this back at me again. I'm trying to get you away from talking about logic and you keep tossing out textbook sound bytes. I'm in my league sir, and that's precisely why what I'm saying can help you.

Your move.

[chipcom]

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.


...and every motorist pulled over for running a light or sign claims they didn't see it, or didn't see the speed limit sign when they got pulled over for speeding, or didn't see the little old lady in the crosswalk who they mowed down. You need to quit using people's excuses for their actions as 'evidence' for one or more of your theories.

The alternative is simple...they were not paying attention - period. This applies to not only bicycles, but to everything else going on around them. The answer isn't to advocate wacky theories to cyclists, the answer is to modify the behavior of both motorists (to pay attention) and cyclists (to pay attention).

[chipcom]

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?

Here come the usual personal attacks that you resort to whenever your theories are debunked and/or ignored.

[EnoughAlready]

Can we just all agree that, in a rigidly defined and potentially evolving set of circumstances, provided weather, lighting and equipment are adequate, that HelmetHead's techniques, accurately practiced, are at least of limited efficacy? It seems the least we can do, and maybe we could all move away from this train wreck and on with our lives.

[EnoughAlready]

Can we just all agree that, in a rigidly defined and potentially evolving set of circumstances, provided weather, lighting and equipment are adequate, that HelmetHead's techniques, accurately practiced, are at least of limited efficacy? It seems the least we can do, and maybe we could all move away from this train wreck and on with our lives

[SSP]

Here come the usual personal attacks that you resort to whenever your theories are debunked and/or ignored.

In fairness to HH, he was merely echoing my rhetorical question to him.

[Helmet Head]

What relationship does the ability to "recall" have with the issue of "safety"?
Sigh. See the argument presented in the OP.

[joejack951]

:beer:

Only a slight nit. I do consider minor and seemingly subtle adjustments when riding in NOLs as part of DLLP. DLLP, in general, is using and adjusting lateral position in all kinds of traffic conditions; that includes minor adjustments in NOLs as well as the major adjustments moving between the primary and secondary riding positions in lanes wide enough to be shared, depending on the presence of faster same-direction traffic.

Ok, makes sense.

[SSP]

Sigh. See the argument presented in the OP.

The OP makes no mention of the ability to "recall". Thus, your "experiment" seems unlikely to validate your hypothesis.

Riding while naked would significantly enhance the number of drivers who would "recall" seeing me...but I doubt it would have any significant effect on my safety.

[Brian Sorrell]

The OP makes no mention of the ability to "recall". Thus, your "experiment" seems unlikely to validate your hypothesis.

Riding while naked would significantly enhance the number of drivers who would "recall" seeing me...but I doubt it would have any significant effect on my safety.

I will also recommend setting the bicycle on fire. I'll never forget the first time I saw a car fire on the freeway -- flames 20 feet high.... Amazing. And this was probably a dozen years ago. Doubtless, a flaming bicycle would make at least an equivalent impact.