Using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drift collisions

[Helmet Head]

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.
You're criticizing a house builder, at the point where he has only started laying the foundation, for building a house that won't protect the occupants from rain. So, you have "helpful" suggestions: add some walls, a roof, etc. Duh. This is in his plans, but he has to finish the foundation first, and, if you knew anything about building houses, you can't start erecting the walls until the foundation is complete.

The particular point I'm trying to make - that using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders is safer with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than just riding statically positioned in the bike lane or shoulder - is but a cornerstone in the foundation of the "house" I'm trying to build. But it's a cornerstone. It's critical to understand, especially by those who keep to the right unless they have an obvious and significant reason to move left, because they believe they are much safer doing that with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than riding further left more often. I'm trying to blow their basic assumption - that staying in the bike lane makes them much safer with respect to threats from behind - out of the water. One way to do that is to point out that threats from behind are extremely low anyway. But I find that doesn't work, because no matter how low that threat is, in their minds it's still there and so frightening that it is significant enough for them to keep to the right too often. So I'm trying to take it a step further. I start by conceding that however low the threat from behind is, it is non-zero. But, if you are ever hit from behind, it's probably because somone didn't notice you, and it's probably because you were in the bike lane or shoulder that they didn't notice you. In other words, I'm trying to defuse the whole reason that they're keeping right.

If the problem we're trying to solve is really how to protect ourselves better from overtaking collisions (which I'm not), then better lighting etc. comes into play. Of course. But that doesn't help me lay the cornerstone of the house I'm trying to build.

I'm sorry this explanation is so long. Joejack can probably state it clearer in fewer words.

[SSP]

You're missing the point. The ultimate intended audience for my argument is not you guys who already know better, but the "typical cyclist" who does believe that keeping right is "much safer".

Many cycling advocates, especially Vehicular Cycling advocates, already ride like that, and make that point abundantly clear in training literature, courses, etc.

But you're attempting (unsucessfully) to assert that your DLLP technique makes one safer than the standard "as far right as practicable" techniques. Clearly, you've not done very well at convincing us of this, so now you're once again attempting to change the subject. :rolleyes:

[joejack951]

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.

I don't remember HH ever saying that DLLP should not be used when the sun is low. It would require extra vigilance above what's normally required though. Then again, so would riding at all when the sun is low if you consider yourself to be invisible to passing traffic (which, as has been discussed, your silhouette IS visible assuming you are in front of the motorist).

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.

HH has said that most motorists overlook cyclists off to the side because they are not relevant to them. Given the fact that a hit from behind collision is so rare when cycling on NOL roads (which are often a favorite of many cyclists), it seems fair to reason that it's very highly unlikely that a motorist would overlook a cyclist in their lane. Add to this the relatively low chance that a cyclist will overlook a motorist coming from behind in their lane and there's very little chance of something going wrong.

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.

I'm not looking to discredit anyone. I am looking to disspell the notion that cyclists will get "road-raged" if they don't stay off to the side and out of the way of motorists. It was something I believed when I got into cycling and it's something that keeps many people from wanting to even try cycling. It gets further compounded by the fact that many cyclists love to talk about how ALL motorists hate cyclists.

[SSP]

Where did I say my critics have been asserting that keeping right is "much safer". That reference was not to my critics! Why did you think it was?

You said:
It's critical to understand, especially by those who keep to the right unless they have an obvious and significant reason to move left, because they believe they are much safer doing that with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than riding further left more often.

Those who "keep to the right unless they have an obvious and significant reason to move left" have been your primary critics in this thread. Get it?

[Helmet Head]

I am looking to disspell the notion that cyclists will get "road-raged" if they don't stay off to the side and out of the way of motorists. It was something I believed when I got into cycling and it's something that keeps many people from wanting to even try cycling. It gets further compounded by the fact that many cyclists love to talk about how ALL motorists hate cyclists.
:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Brian Sorrell]

You're criticizing a house builder, at the point where he has only started laying the foundation, for building a house that won't protect the occupants from rain. So, you have "helpful" suggestions: add some walls, a roof, etc. Duh. This is in his plans, but he has to finish the foundation first, and, if you knew anything about building houses, you can't start erecting the walls until the foundation is complete.

If you want to express this as a metaphor, what I'm recommending to you, as a house builder, is that you should use different materials, not that a house consists of x, y, and z. But why resort to a metaphor when my point is clear:

Use a different approach to expressing the value of your technique and you will convince more people.

Furthermore, why would you suggest that I don't know anything about building houses? I suspect that you're just mad at me. That's ok. Lots of people have been mad at me for some reason or another and lots more will be. I'll still try to help you. However, on days off, I sometimes work with a contractor friend who, among other things, builds houses. Part-time I design and sell custom furniture. You can look in my profile and learn that much about me. I'm sore as hell today from finishing my neighbor's front porch Monday. Assumptions make you look funny.

[Helmet Head]

I don't remember HH ever saying that DLLP should not be used when the sun is low. It would require extra vigilance above what's normally required though. Then again, so would riding at all when the sun is low if you consider yourself to be invisible to passing traffic (which, as has been discussed, your silhouette IS visible assuming you are in front of the motorist).
Hey, in certain sun blinding situations I've actually gotten onto the sidewalk. The point is that's a separate issue.

But when I'm riding into the sun, as I commonly do riding west on my return commute, especially this time of year, and the situation is not extreme, I certainly use DLLP. I often stand up to increase the size of silhouette when I see someone approaching, and I wait for the usual signs of recognition, slowing down (which I've recently noticed I often ascertain from changes in sound pitches - both engine and tire noise - more than I realized), and/or lateral position adjustment, before I move aside. But I always move aside before they reach me, so by the time they're overtaking me I'm certainly in no more "danger" then I would be if I was an SLLP cyclist.

HH has said that most motorists overlook cyclists off to the side because they are not relevant to them. Given the fact that a hit from behind collision is so rare when cycling on NOL roads (which are often a favorite of many cyclists), it seems fair to reason that it's very highly unlikely that a motorist would overlook a cyclist in their lane. Add to this the relatively low chance that a cyclist will overlook a motorist coming from behind in their lane and there's very little chance of something going wrong.
Yes, of course, using DLLP in wide lanes in all conditions, including riding into the sun, is no more dangerous than cycling in NOLs in the same conditions.

Edit: Using DLLP in wide lanes is much safer than cycling in NOLs (which is already known to be very safe) in the same conditions because the DLLP cyclist moves out of the way of faster traffic 99+% of the time, so his safety depends on being noticed by same-direction traffic less than 1% of the time, while the safety of the NOL cyclist relies on 100% of the approaching faster motorists noticing him.

[Helmet Head]

If you want to express this as a metaphor, what I'm recommending to you, as a house builder, is that you should use different materials, not that a house consists of x, y, and z. But why resort to a metaphor when my point is clear:

Use a different approach to expressing the value of your technique and you will convince more people.

Furthermore, why would you suggest that I don't know anything about building houses? I suspect that you're just mad at me. That's ok. Lots of people have been mad at me for some reason or another and lots more will be. I'll still try to help you. However, on days off, I sometimes work with a contractor friend who, among other things, builds houses. Part-time I design and sell custom furniture. You can look in my profile and learn that much about me. I'm sore as hell today from finishing my neighbor's front porch Monday. Assumptions make you look funny.
I can't believe you took that literally. For the record, I had no idea what you knew about building houses prior to this post, and so any comment about that obviously could not have been meant literally.

Also, I'm not mad at you. Heck, I get irritated from time to time (when I'm using the purple font for emphasizing my own words it's a good indicator of me being irritated) but I'm not one to get mad at you or anyone else.

If you have a suggestion for what other technique I could use to make my point, please let me know. But, please, keep in mind the point I'm actually trying to make, which I specified in my last post to you:


The particular point I'm trying to make - that using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders is safer with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than just riding statically positioned in the bike lane or shoulder - is but a cornerstone in the foundation of the "house" I'm trying to build. But it's a cornerstone. It's critical to understand, especially by those who keep to the right unless they have an obvious and significant reason to move left, because they believe they are much safer doing that with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than riding further left more often. I'm trying to blow their basic assumption - that staying in the bike lane makes them much safer with respect to threats from behind - out of the water. One way to do that is to point out that threats from behind are extremely low anyway. But I find that doesn't work, because no matter how low that threat is, in their minds it's still there and so frightening that it is significant enough for them to keep to the right too often. So I'm trying to take it a step further. I start by conceding that however low the threat from behind is, it is non-zero. But, if you are ever hit from behind, it's probably because somone didn't notice you, and it's probably because you were in the bike lane or shoulder that they didn't notice you. In other words, I'm trying to defuse the whole reason that they're keeping right.

If the problem we're trying to solve is really how to protect ourselves better from overtaking collisions (which I'm not), then better lighting etc. comes into play. Of course. But that doesn't help me lay the cornerstone of the house I'm trying to build.

[Brian Sorrell]

I can't believe you took that literally. For the record, I had no idea what you knew about building houses prior to this post, and so any comment about that obviously could not have been meant literally.

Also, I'm not mad at you. Heck, I get irritated from time to time (when I'm using the purple font for emphasizing my own words it's a good indicator of me being irritated) but I'm not one to get mad at you or anyone else.

If you have a suggestion for what other technique I could use to make my point, please let me know. But, please, keep in mind the point I'm actually trying to make, which I specified in my last post to you:

But you're usually such a savage literalist!!

I did make suggestions -- the modification of the informal technique called "argument to the best explanation". I think that I understand your point. Again, I take your point to be that we need an effective technique to make ourselves more obvious to potentially distracted drivers. If that's an accurate characterization, then I recommend that you START with a very simple characterization in so many words.

Again, for my money, safe cycling is all about mastering techniques, and knowing when those techniques are most effective. So your task is to clearly state what the technique is -- which you have done but in what I consider too many words -- then help us understand where and when that technique is appropriate for accomplishing -- assuming we're together on the point -- being as visible as possible even when drivers are distracted.

You'll have a very different set of responses if you approach things in that sort of gentler way.

[SSP]

The particular point I'm trying to make - that using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders is safer with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than just riding statically positioned in the bike lane or shoulder - is but a cornerstone in the foundation of the "house" I'm trying to build. But it's a cornerstone. It's critical to understand, especially by those who keep to the right unless they have an obvious and significant reason to move left, because they believe they are much safer doing that with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than riding further left more often. I'm trying to blow their basic assumption - that staying in the bike lane makes them much safer with respect to threats from behind - out of the water. One way to do that is to point out that threats from behind are extremely low anyway. But I find that doesn't work, because no matter how low that threat is, in their minds it's still there and so frightening that it is significant enough for them to keep to the right too often. So I'm trying to take it a step further. I start by conceding that however low the threat from behind is, it is non-zero. But, if you are ever hit from behind, it's probably because somone didn't notice you, and it's probably because you were in the bike lane or shoulder that they didn't notice you. In other words, I'm trying to defuse the whole reason that they're keeping right.

Now you're putting words in the mouths of your critics. Most of us have not been asserting that keeping right is "much safer"...we have, however, pointed out that keeping right in the presence of WOL/BL's is more customary behavior, and that it's more predictable and easier than continually weaving out into the primary travel lane.

FWIW, you're the one who is making claims of enhanced safety (see your OP)...unfortunately, in the absence of any evidence to back up your claims you're attempting to use your rather limited skills in "logic" and "arguing" (that, and your incredible levels of persistence/obsession).

FWIW, you've blown nothing out of the water in this thread (other than your own credibility).

[mechBgon]

Incidentally, regarding joejack951's comment that it's not likely an oversight will result in a collision... sorry, but as someone who's been rear-ended by cars before, both in a car and on a bike, I really am not buying that. :) Nice try, though. Look at all the cars with damaged front ends, rear ends, etc and ask yourself how that happened, folks.

[Helmet Head]

But you're usually such a savage literalist!!

I did make suggestions -- the modification of the informal technique called "argument to the best explanation". I think that I understand your point. Again, I take your point to be that we need an effective technique to make ourselves more obvious to potentially distracted drivers.

No. My point is much more specific than that: using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders is safer with respect to whatever threat there may be from same-direction traffic than just riding statically positioned in the bike lane or shoulder

If that's an accurate characterization, then I recommend that you START with a very simple characterization in so many words.
Can you make the same point simpler? Without changing it? That would be appreciated.

Again, for my money, safe cycling is all about mastering techniques, and knowing when those techniques are most effective. So your task is to clearly state what the technique is -- which you have done but in what I consider too many words -- then help us understand where and when that technique is appropriate for accomplishing -- assuming we're together on the point -- being as visible as possible even when drivers are distracted.

You'll have a very different set of responses if you approach things in that sort of gentler way.
But what if I see my task as breaking irrational superstitutions? In particular, the irrational superstitution that:


Same direction faster traffic is the most significant threat to a cyclist in traffic.
The best way to manage that threat is keeping to the right (in the bike lane, whatever).


How would you suggest addressing that task in an effective manner?

[Helmet Head]

Now you're putting words in the mouths of your critics. Most of us have not been asserting that keeping right is "much safer"...we have, however, pointed out that keeping right in the presence of WOL/BL's is more customary behavior, and that it's more predictable and easier than continually weaving out into the primary travel lane.
Where did I say my critics have been asserting that keeping right is "much safer". That reference was not to my critics! Why did you think it was?

FWIW, you're the one who is making claims of enhanced safety (see your OP)...unfortunately, in the absence of any evidence to back up your claims you're attempting to use your rather limited skills in "logic" and "arguing" (that, and your incredible levels of persistence/obsession).

FWIW, you've blown nothing out of the water in this thread (other than your own credibility).
You're missing the point. The ultimate intended audience for my argument is not you guys who already know better, but the "typical cyclist" who does believe that keeping right is "much safer". I'm trying to find a way to challenge his thinking (because it's that thinking that's keeping him to the right and in the bike lane when he should not be there). I'm just using you guys as a sounding board for the general efficacy of my argument, which is very difficult because you guys continually refuse to address the argument at all.

[saraflux]

this may be a little off topic (though given the experimental model aspect of this thread, maybe not so awfully far off...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJ4VBq4n3U&mode=related&search=


take a look.

[mechBgon]

Incidentally, regarding joejack951's comment that it's not likely an oversight will result in a collision... sorry, but as someone who's been rear-ended by cars before, both in a car and on a bike, I really am not buying that. :) Nice try, though. Look at all the cars with damaged front ends, rear ends, etc and ask yourself how that happened, folks.Looks like we have a scrambled database, so let's see if this ends up at the end of the thread or not.

[Bekologist]

helemt head, did you just state that riding in WOL's is SAFER than NOL's? is that because it's easier to stay out of the way?- wether you feel the need to weave in and out of traffic in front of every car, or just move left when necessary? these WOL's are SAFER?

are you clamoring for facilities? like wide outside lanes to make your technique safer?

I believe most if not ALL of the riders posting in this thread already adjust our positions in the lane for safety and hazards......

[SingingSabre]

vrkelley, perhaps he should try Static Hindering Unidirectional Triangulated Theory Helping Everyone Home-in Every Lane Lapse Upsilon Positioning.

Just a thought.

[Helmet Head]

helemt head, did you just state that riding in WOL's is SAFER than NOL's? is that because it's easier to stay out of the way?- wether you feel the need to weave in and out of traffic in front of every car, or just move left when necessary? these WOL's are SAFER?
Yes, when same-direction drivers are blinded by the sun, WOLs are SAFER than NOLs.

are you clamoring for facilities? like wide outside lanes to make your technique safer?
The relative higher safety of WOLs over NOLs when sensory conspicuity is extremely low (like when riding at night without lights, or when riding directly into the low sun) has nothing to do with my technique, and is such an insignificant issue that it does not warrant "clamoring for facilities like WOLs."

I believe most if not ALL of the riders posting in this thread already adjust our positions in the lane for safety and hazards......
So do I.

[Bekologist]

here's my take on it:

USING VISIBILITY DEVICES IS MORE RELEVANT TO THE ABSOLUTE COGNIFICATION OF BICYCLISTS BY DRIVERS than using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders.

USE OF COGNIFICATION DEVICES IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO QUICKER RECOGNITION to prevent inadverdant grey pouponing, than any lane nuance, during long gaps in same direction traffic on roads with shoulders, bike lanes OR without.

[Bekologist]

want to know why I move out into a centerish position during long gaps of traffic?

because its more FUN!!!

[Lot's Knife]

I ride a lot like Helmet Head, but probably for a different reason.

I just want to limit my exposure to the debris field.

So I'm in the right tire line when it's safe, and back to the margin when it ain't. If there's lots of traffic, I'm resigned to listening to my tires crunch away.

[SingingSabre]

I ride a lot like Helmet Head, but probably for a different reason.

I just want to limit my exposure to the debris field.

So I'm in the right tire line when it's safe, and back to the margin when it ain't. If there's lots of traffic, I'm resigned to listening to my tires crunch away.

Understandable. I'm just glad you're not telling everyone that they're basically going to die a grotesque bicycle lane death due to their riding habits. :)

[EnoughAlready]

Can we just all agree that, in a narrow, rigidly defined and potentially evolving set of circumstances, provided weather, lighting and equipment are adequate, that HelmetHead's techniques, accurately practiced, are potentially of at least 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.

[LittleBigMan]

Can we just all agree that, in a narrow, rigidly defined and potentially evolving set of circumstances, provided weather, lighting and equipment are adequate, that HelmetHead's techniques, accurately practiced, are potentially of at least 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.
You miss the point, EnoughAlready. We are all having too much fun, here.

:)

[sbhikes]

What's ruralish?

[Bekologist]

Yes, when same-direction drivers are blinded by the sun, WOLs are SAFER than NOLs.

but, helemt head, if the wide lane is safer when the driver CAN'T see the bicyclist, wouldn't the wide lane also be more safe when the driver CAN see the bicyclist?

or are you saying narrow lanes are safer for bicyclists? on these types of ruralish roads.

like Sbikes asked, what is 'ruralish'? do you mean suburbia? I think the drunken sailor lane swerve (DSLS) has some applicability, albiet limited, in front of SUV wielding soccer moms intent on a quick latte at the driveup starbucks before work.

or are you talking about logging trucks?

[tomcryar]

What's ruralish?


It's a non-word.

[Helmet Head]

but, helemt head, if the wide lane is safer when the driver CAN'T see the bicyclist, wouldn't the wide lane also be more safe when the driver CAN see the bicyclist?
In a word, NO.

Because when the driver CAN "see" the cyclist (the cyclist is sensory conspicuous), that does not mean he will necessarily NOTICE the cyclist.

In order for the driver to NOTICE the cyclist, the cyclist must achieve cognitive conspicuity as well as sensory conspicuity. Per the argument in the OP of this thread (which I'm not going to repeat), when the sensory conspicuous cyclist is riding in the path of the motorist that makes him more likely to be noticed by the approaching motorist.

But, yes, if the cyclist does not even have sensory conspicuity, then there is no point in trying to achieve cognitive conspicuity.

[Helmet Head]

What's ruralish?

Did anyone read the OP of this thread?

[Helmet Head]

here's my take on it:

USING VISIBILITY DEVICES IS MORE RELEVANT TO THE ABSOLUTE COGNIFICATION OF BICYCLISTS BY DRIVERS than using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders.

USE OF COGNIFICATION DEVICES IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO QUICKER RECOGNITION to prevent inadverdant grey pouponing, than any lane nuance, during long gaps in same direction traffic on roads with shoulders, bike lanes OR without.
You wrote, "here's my take on it:"

What do you mean by "it"?

And what relevance does "it" have to this thread?

[Bekologist]

You can't read, head? i think vis is more relevant than your cockamamie lane positioning construct, it says so in black and white...


"USING VISIBILITY DEVICES IS MORE RELEVANT TO THE ABSOLUTE COGNIFICATION OF BICYCLISTS BY DRIVERS than using a centerish position during significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic on roads with bike lanes or shoulders.

USE OF COGNIFICATION DEVICES IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO QUICKER RECOGNITION to prevent inadverdant drift, than any lane nuance, during long gaps in same direction traffic on roads with shoulders, bike lanes OR without."
s
o, narrow lanes are safer than wide lanes then? is this suburbia or logging truck land?

[tomcryar]

"You're criticizing a house builder, at the point where he has only started laying the foundation, for building a house that won't protect the occupants from rain. So, you have "helpful" suggestions: add some walls, a roof, etc. Duh. This is in his plans, but he has to finish the foundation first, and, if you knew anything about building houses, you can't start erecting the walls until the foundation is complete."---from post 251

This is another example of how your childish arrogance toward people who disagree with you (or even agree with you) tends to alienate some people. Stick to the point and detail your point concisely and clearly. Psuedo-logic is just what it means---false.

[Helmet Head]

Here's my take on it:
...

What do you mean by it?

You can't read, head? i think vis is more relevant than your cockamamie lane positioning construct,...

I know you think vis is more relevant than lane positioning, and I don't disagree (because without sensory conspicuity lane positioning is pointless), but I still don't know what you meant by "it".

When you wrote, "here's what I think of it:"

Did the word "it" refer to "the topic of vis vs. lane positioning" (which nobody was talking about, and is my point), or something else that actually is relevant to this thread? If something else, what?

[mechBgon]

In a word, NO.

Because when the driver CAN "see" the cyclist (the cyclist is sensory conspicuous), that does not mean he will necessarily NOTICE the cyclist.

In order for the driver to NOTICE the cyclist, the cyclist must achieve cognitive conspicuity as well as sensory conspicuity. Per the argument in the OP of this thread (which I'm not going to repeat), when the sensory conspicuous cyclist is riding in the path of the motorist, that makes him more likely to be noticed by the approaching motorist.In the photos I posted back in post #70 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3148734&highlight=ansi#post3148734), if I'd been in the traffic lane, it would've put me out of sight at some points. Whereas riding in the bike lane put me more directly in the apparent path (dead-ahead) of the vehicles. See photo below.

http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis.jpg

But, yes, if the cyclist does not even have sensory conspicuity, then there is no point in trying to achieve cognitive conspicuity.And flipping that around, if the cyclist does have a good visibility system, it can force the motorist to look where the cyclist is, and notice them. The guy at the Post Office recently was an example of this; he said that I "grabbed" his attention from three blocks away with my visibility solution (daytime-visible lights, ANSI lime outer layer).

[Helmet Head]

I ride a lot like Helmet Head, but probably for a different reason.

I just want to limit my exposure to the debris field.

So I'm in the right tire line when it's safe, and back to the margin when it ain't. If there's lots of traffic, I'm resigned to listening to my tires crunch away.
Do not confuse the argument in the OP of this thread with the primary reason that my default riding position is in the center of the traffic lane. Increasing conspicuity to drivers from behind is a secondary reason for doing it. The reason the argument in the OP of this thread is so important, however, is because it counters the thinking of those who default to the edge of the road (including the bike lane or shoulder) because they believe they are safer from same-direction traffic there, which is of primary concern to them.

[SingingSabre]

Do not confuse the argument in the OP of this thread with the primary reason that my default riding position is in the center of the traffic lane. Increasing conspicuity to drivers from behind is a secondary reason for doing it. The reason the argument in the OP of this thread is so important, however, is because it counters the thinking of those who default to the edge of the road (including the bike lane or shoulder) because they believe they are safer from same-direction traffic there, which is of primary concern to them.

Trying to get out of it now, are we?

[mechBgon]

The reason the argument in the OP of this thread is so important, however, is because it counters the thinking of those who default to the edge of the road (including the bike lane or shoulder) because they believe they are safer from same-direction traffic there, which is of primary concern to them.Given a decent visibility system, their belief is probably correct, too. The safety of a non-collision path, combined with the motorist awareness generated by their attention-grabbing visibility systems. In the real world, we have this option. It's not the 1980's any more.

Oh, and for the latecomers to the partay: even HH can (at least sometimes) be cornered into acknowledging that my solution works so well that his DLLP technique is pointless: post 196 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3160212&#post3160212).

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Can we just all agree that, in a narrow, rigidly defined and potentially evolving set of circumstances, provided weather, lighting and equipment are adequate, that HelmetHead's techniques, accurately practiced, are potentially of at least 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.
In a word - NO. Others are having too much fun watching and helping HH wiggle, squirm and make a fool of himself with a little help from a couple of wise bicycling wizards who have had their powers of logic blessed by HH himself. This thread is a barrel of laffs so it is NOT enuff already.

Keep it up HH, fight the fight and go down with your holey Titanic Theories like a true blue Foresterite. Just don't expect anybody but your few brothers in nut-house logic and sophistry to join you.

[mechBgon]

In a word - NO. Others are having too much fun watching and helping HH wiggle, squirm and make a fool of himself with a little help from a couple of wise bicycling wizards who have had their powers of logic blessed by HH himself. This thread is a barrel of laffs so it is NOT enuff already.
I'm doing my best to prod him with my special multi-pronged troll-prodding stick whenever he shows signs of slowing down. I keep it with me at all times, even when napping:

http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/trollBgon.JPG

But a guy's got to go to work sometime. Someone else take a turn for a while :)

[Helmet Head]

In the photos I posted back in post #70 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3148734&highlight=ansi#post3148734), if I'd been in the traffic lane, it would've put me out of sight at some points. Whereas riding in the bike lane put me more directly in the apparent path (dead-ahead) of the vehicles. See photo below.
.

http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis.jpg

A mere half second prior to taking this particular photo, the cyclist, if traveling at 15 mph/22 fps, would have been 11 feet back from where he is shown in the picture. If center-lane positioned at that point, and for a significant time prior to that, the cyclist would have been very visible and cognitively conspicuous (relevant) to any approaching motorist. But if he had been riding in the shoulder 11 feet back (and for the hundreds of feet prior to that), he may have been just as visible (sensory conspicuous) to approaching motorists, but not as relevant, and so not as cognitively conspicuous.

Of course if you take the outside radius of a left curve you will remain visible for a fraction of a second longer than if you take a slightly smaller radus in the center of the lane. Are you arguing that fraction of a second is significant? You happened to take this photo during that insignificant fraction of a second. What's the point?

And flipping that around, if the cyclist does have a good visibility system, it can force the motorist to look where the cyclist is, and notice them. The guy at the Post Office recently was an example of this; he said that I "grabbed" his attention from three blocks away with my visibility solution (daytime-visible lights, ANSI lime outer layer).
You keep ignoring the lesson from your Australian example, you know, where the motorist noticed the cyclist "on the verge", and because the cyclist was on the verge (on the shoulder), decided the cyclist was irrelevant and so chose to attend to a distraction (look for something in her purse).

The point is that noticing is not enough. You can notice something and still immediately discount its relevancy. So the flashing lights draws the attention of the driver to the cyclist in the bike lane or shoulder, who notes that the cyclist is the bike lane or shoulder, and decides to ignore their presence because of that. I'm not saying all drivers do that. And even if some test shows that most drivers don't do that, it does not refute my point that some drivers do that.

The cyclist who seeks to not be inadvertently drifted into needs to not only to be noticed, but also to be noted as being relevant to the approaching motorist. Riding out of the way in the shoulder or bike lane, not matter how many lights and flashers he may have, does not help make one's purpose to be perceived as relevant to an approaching motorist.

[Helmet Head]

http://freepages.thesecretlabs.com/~mechbgon/hi-vis.jpg

I'd like to see two other photos, both taken about a second prior to this one.

One with the cyclist in the shoulder, and the other with the cyclist positioned in the center of the lane.

Also, I would like to see the photos taken from the perspective of the driver, not from off to the side.

[Helmet Head]

Do not confuse the argument in the OP of this thread with the primary reason that my default riding position is in the center of the traffic lane. Increasing conspicuity to drivers from behind is a secondary reason for doing it. The reason the argument in the OP of this thread is so important, however, is because it counters the thinking of those who default to the edge of the road (including the bike lane or shoulder) because they believe they are safer from same-direction traffic there, which is of primary concern to them.


Trying to get out of it now, are we?

Trying to get out of what?

I've been consistently saying that the primary reason to use a default centerish position is to improve your sightlines to and from potential cross traffic hazards for years now. It's straight out of John Franklin's book, Cyclecraft.

[Helmet Head]

Given a decent visibility system, their belief is probably correct, too. The safety of a non-collision path, combined with the motorist awareness generated by their attention-grabbing visibility systems. In the real world, we have this option. It's not the 1980's any more.

Oh, and for the latecomers to the partay: even HH can (at least sometimes) be cornered into acknowledging that my solution works so well that his DLLP technique is pointless: post 196 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3160212&#post3160212).
But the primary reasons and other secondary reasons to be positioned in the center of the lane by default still apply: to improve sightlines to and from any potential cross-traffic, to improve cognitive conspicuity with potential cross-traffic, to increase the space around you in general, to avoid rubble and debris, etc.

The reason I emphasize the argument in the OP of this thread is because all of the above reasons are apparently not enough for those cyclists (including apparently you) whose irrational fear from the rear trumps everything else, and, as a result, they cling to the outside edge of the road, except when they have no other choice but to move further left. So I'm just trying to point out that even between intersections, you're no safer at the side than in the primary riding position during gaps of sdt (same direction traffic), per the argument in the OP.

[EnoughAlready]

In a word - NO. Others are having too much fun watching and helping HH wiggle, squirm and make a fool of himself with a little help from a couple of wise bicycling wizards who have had their powers of logic blessed by HH himself. This thread is a barrel of laffs so it is NOT enuff already.

Keep it up HH, fight the fight and go down with your holey Titanic Theories like a true blue Foresterite. Just don't expect anybody but your few brothers in nut-house logic and sophistry to join you.


I know that & agree that it's good fun. My contribution (perhaps not nearly tongue in cheek enough) was to try to point out what a tiny, ever diminishing little scrap of turf HH is contorting himself to defend. Carry on.

[Helmet Head]

I know that & agree that it's good fun. My contribution (perhaps not nearly tongue in cheek enough) was to try to point out what a tiny, ever diminishing little scrap of turf HH is contorting himself to defend. Carry on.
Ever diminishing little scrap of turf?

I have been defending the one and only same conclusion that was stated in the OP:


Conclusion
Per the above reasoning, it's 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.


That's the turf I originally staked out when I started this thread, and the only one I've been defending. What do you (or anyone else) think has diminished from this?

[SSP]

The reason I emphasize the argument in the OP of this thread is because all of the above reasons are apparently not enough for those cyclists (including apparently you) whose irrational fear from the rear trumps everything else, and, as a result, they cling to the outside edge of the road, except when they have no other choice but to move further left.

Several of us have pointed out to you that we already ride close to the roadway. I've told you on several ocassions that in the presence of a WOL/BL, I'm normally positioned 12-18" to the right of the stripe...not "clinging to the outside edge of the road". This is standard operating procedure for most confident VC's, who generally do not suffer from "irrational fears" (unlike you, who seems to have an irrational fear of not being noticed...is that why you're such a persistent troll?).

Riding close to, but to the right of the line is more than enough to establish my "conspicuity" and "relevance" to overtaking drivers. The vast majority move a bit left as they pass me, indicating that I am, in fact, highly relevant to them.

Thus, there's no need for me to weave back and forth over the line...doing so would not increase my relevance, nor enhance my safety.

[LittleBigMan]

I use a whistle, and have for many years. It's something I use because I think it makes me safer. I've had many experiences over the years in which this piercing sound device has gotten the attention of drivers who were starting to pull out into my path while I was riding at a fast clip, or turning in front of me, among other scenarios.

But I don't notice any other cyclists using a whistle. Still, I never go out without mine, because of what I've experienced. I doubt I'll ever sell anyone on the idea, but it works for me.

I don't have a problem with HH using "DLLP." It's one of those things that HH uses because he thinks it makes him more conspicuous to drivers. I might never use it, but knowing that I have a quirk of my own that I believe strongly in, I'll probably keep "DLLP" in mind for the future, because who knows, it might be one of those tools that comes in handy someday.

But I can't at this point recommend "DLLP" to anyone, not having a strong base of personal experience in using it.

[AlmostTrick]

four posts here

A newbie named "EnoughAlready" who just became a member in October and only posted in this DLLP thread? I'm not buyin' it, who are you really?

[Helmet Head]

The reason I emphasize the argument in the OP of this thread is because all of the above reasons are apparently not enough for those cyclists (including apparently you) whose irrational fear from the rear trumps everything else, and, as a result, they cling to the outside edge of the road, except when they have no other choice but to move further left.

Several of us have pointed out to you that we already ride close to the roadway. I've told you on several ocassions that in the presence of a WOL/BL, I'm normally positioned 12-18" to the right of the stripe...not "clinging to the outside edge of the road". This is standard operating procedure for most confident VC's, who generally do not suffer from "irrational fears" (unlike you, who seems to have an irrational fear of not being noticed...is that why you're such a persistent troll?).

Riding close to, but to the right of the line is more than enough to establish my "conspicuity" and "relevance" to overtaking drivers. The vast majority move a bit left as they pass me, indicating that I am, in fact, highly relevant to them.

Thus, there's no need for me to weave back and forth over the line...doing so would not increase my relevance, nor enhance my safety.
To be clear, what you call "ride close to the roadway ... positioned 12-18" to the RIGHT of the stripe" IS included in what I mean by "clinging to the outside edge of the road".

While what I mean by "clinging to the outside edge of the road" also includes "clinging to the VERY outside of edge of the road" (the gutter), it is not limited to that. It includes the entire space that comprises the several feet of outside pavement that vehicular through traffic normally does not use - "the outside edge".

If you would like to me to use some other term to refer to that space, please let me know what it is.

If the reason you ride there is not because of an irrational fear "from the rear", then why don't you ride further left for all the benefits of doing so (which have little to do with overtaking traffic, and much to do with cross-traffic, avoiding debris, etc.)?

See my new thread on "riding on roads with bike lanes" to discuss this further. I'd like to focus on the validity/soundness and persuasiveness of the argument in the OP in this thread.

[LittleBigMan]

A newbie named "EnoughAlready" who just became a member in October and only posted in this DLLP thread? I'm not buyin' it, who are you really?
Not me...

:eek:

:D