Using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drift collisions

[sbhikes]

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.

My emphasis added here.

Who here manifests a greater irrational fear from the rear than someone who is so afraid of not being noticed that they eschew perfectly reasonable bicycle facilities, high visibility clothing and lights in favor of a more bludgeon-over-the-head tactic like riding down the center of the lane until a visible evasive reaction from the motorist behind is made?

[LittleBigMan]

Check (not mate, watch the next move.)

:)

I believe this is going to be a stalemate.

:p

[joejack951]

My emphasis added here.

Who here manifests a greater irrational fear from the rear than someone who is so afraid of not being noticed that they eschew perfectly reasonable bicycle facilities, high visibility clothing and lights in favor of a more bludgeon-over-the-head tactic like riding down the center of the lane until a visible evasive reaction from the motorist behind is made?

Who here cannot see the benefits of using a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same direction traffic?

Answer: Apparently everyone on this forum who continues to disagree with HH.

Why don't they even want to consider those benefits?

Answer: Because of their irrational fear from the rear due to faster same direction traffic that may or may not be present.

[SSP]

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.)?

Because I believe that there are no "benefits of doing so".

Specifically:

1) It's clear to me from the behavior of overtaking drivers that with my current technique I'm both conspicuous and relevant to them. The vast majority shift left in the lane and/or cross over the centerline.

2) I already avoid the vast majority of road debris by riding where I do (based on my low rate of flats).

3) I think it's more important for my safety to be seen as "predictable". Weaving back and forth over the line makes me, IMO, less predictable to drivers.

4) The vast majority of cycling authorities, and the laws on the books in most states, recommend riding "as far right as practicable". Until you can change this body of common sense and law (something you're not even close to achieving despite thousands of words and hundreds of posts), I'll stick with the traditional techniques that have worked for decades.

5) The chances of an "inadvertent drift" overtaking collision are vanishingly small with or without DLLP. Since I use both a mirror, and a daylight flasher, I think my odds are even less...thus, your silly technique would be both more work, and superflous to my safety.

[SSP]

My emphasis added here.

Who here manifests a greater irrational fear from the rear than someone who is so afraid of not being noticed that they eschew perfectly reasonable bicycle facilities, high visibility clothing and lights in favor of a more bludgeon-over-the-head tactic like riding down the center of the lane until a visible evasive reaction from the motorist behind is made?

Hard Head really has a deep-seated fear of not being noticed...thus, his incredibly persistent postings, along with the continual "dynamic weaving" of his arguments. :D

[SSP]

Who here cannot see the benefits of using a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same direction traffic?

Answer: Apparently everyone on this forum who continues to disagree with HH.

Why don't they even want to consider those benefits?

Answer: Because of their irrational fear from the rear due to faster same direction traffic that may or may not be present.

With zero faster same direction traffic, how is my lateral position relevant to my safety? With zero faster same direction traffic, I could lay down in the roadway and be just as safe. :rolleyes:

[joejack951]

With zero faster same direction traffic, how is my lateral position relevant to my safety? With zero faster same direction traffic, I could lay down in the roadway and be just as safe. :rolleyes:

Um, oncoming and cross traffic :rolleyes: Please, tell me that you really didn't just ask that question on page 13 of this thread.

[Helmet Head]

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.)?

Because I believe that there are no "benefits of doing so".

Specifically:

1) It's clear to me from the behavior of overtaking drivers that with my current technique I'm both conspicuous and relevant to them. The vast majority shift left in the lane and/or cross over the centerline.

2) I already avoid the vast majority of road debris by riding where I do (based on my low rate of flats).

3) I think it's more important for my safety to be seen as "predictable". Weaving back and forth over the line makes me, IMO, less predictable to drivers.

4) The vast majority of cycling authorities, and the laws on the books in most states, recommend riding "as far right as practicable". Until you can change this body of common sense and law (something you're not even close to achieving despite thousands of words and hundreds of posts), I'll stick with the traditional techniques that have worked for decades.

5) The chances of an "inadvertent drift" overtaking collision are vanishingly small with or without DLLP. Since I use both a mirror, and a daylight flasher, I think my odds are even less...thus, your silly technique would be both more work, and superflous to my safety.
Answered in the "Riding on roads with bike lanes" thread where it is more pertinent.

[LittleBigMan]

Who here cannot see the benefits of using a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same direction traffic?

Answer: Apparently everyone on this forum who continues to disagree with HH.

Why don't they even want to consider those benefits?

Answer: Because of their irrational fear from the rear due to faster same direction traffic that may or may not be present.
I use a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same-direction traffic for about half of my 14 mile commute. But I don't move right when overtaking traffic appears, I hold my position.

I don't agree with HH that his "DLLP" is effectively safer than riding like I just mentioned, or in the right tire-track, or in a properly-designed bike lane. But I only question his technique, I don't claim it has no merit.

But to say that everyone who disagrees with HH in this thread is afraid of overtaking vehicles is overgeneralizing.

(Hey! Who you calling "scared?" :D )

[joejack951]

4) The vast majority of cycling authorities, and the laws on the books in most states, recommend riding "as far right as practicable". Until you can change this body of common sense and law (something you're not even close to achieving despite thousands of words and hundreds of posts), I'll stick with the traditional techniques that have worked for decades.


From the CA vehicle code:

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes


21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.

[Helmet Head]

I use a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same-direction traffic for about half of my 14 mile commute. But I don't move right when overtaking traffic appears, I hold my position.
I assume you hold your position and not move right when overtaking traffic appears because the lane is too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side. If there was, say, a shoulder, would you then move right? Would you stay there the entire time?

[LittleBigMan]

I assume you hold your position and not move right when overtaking traffic appears because the lane is too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side. If there was, say, a shoulder, would you then move right? Would you stay there the entire time?
No, I would not move over to the shoulder, because it is the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to move left.

However, there are time that, out of courtesy, if I have room to share the lane, I have moved right to allow drivers to pass more quickly. But there are also times drivers have abused my kindness and threatened my safety by passing too closely.

[joejack951]

I use a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same-direction traffic for about half of my 14 mile commute. But I don't move right when overtaking traffic appears, I hold my position.

I don't agree with HH that his "DLLP" is effectively safer than riding like I just mentioned, or in the right tire-track, or in a properly-designed bike lane. But I only question his technique, I don't claim it has no merit.

But to say that everyone who disagrees with HH in this thread is afraid of overtaking vehicles is overgeneralizing.

(Hey! Who you calling "scared?" :D )

Sorry for the generalization. Next time I generalize about this topic, I'll be sure to note you as an exception :)

When you say you don't move right with faster same direction approaching, why don't you? Is it because the roadway width does not allow it? Are you travelling at the speed limit? Is the shoulder/space to your right debris-filled? All of these are valid reasons not to move right and no one defending DLLP would move right with those conditions present either.

[edit] No need to answer twice, LBM. I will often hold my position even with a shoulder present assuming either very light traffic (and the motorist has started moving left to go around me anyway) or an open passing lane. [edit]

[LittleBigMan]

Thanks, JoeJack. :D

HH, not to be confrontational, but is "DLLP" a form of "civil disobedience," in which you violate the letter of the law in the interest of what you believe to be a more important issue, i.e., personal safety (which, if you interpret the spirit of the law, is not a violation.)

[SingingSabre]

Who here cannot see the benefits of using a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same direction traffic?

Answer: Apparently everyone on this forum who continues to disagree with HH.

Why don't they even want to consider those benefits?

Answer: Because of their irrational fear from the rear due to faster same direction traffic that may or may not be present.

The benefits that advocates of his method perceive are minimal and can be much more easily and safely obtained via moderate lane positionings and more visible clothing.

Check.

[SSP]

Answered in the "Riding on roads with bike lanes" thread where it is more pertinent.

Actually, a) you didn't, and b) it isn't.

[sbhikes]

Who here cannot see the benefits of using a default centered position on the roadway in the presence of zero faster same direction traffic?

If there is zero faster same direction traffic then who the heck cares where you ride your bike. It's like if a tree falls in the forest...If a bicyclist rides in the center of the lane and nobody is there to see it, did it happen?

[joejack951]

If there is zero faster same direction traffic then who the heck cares where you ride your bike. It's like if a tree falls in the forest...If a bicyclist rides in the center of the lane and nobody is there to see it, did it happen?

Exactly. So why ride off to the side? Why take the chance of running over a piece of glass and flatting? Why risk having to merge at the last second because you didn't see some debris around the corner or in the shadows on the edge of the road? Why take the chance that you'll pass a hidden driveway where someone pulls out into the shoulder to look for oncoming traffic where traffic is normally coming from? It makes no sense. There's no reason for it. No one cares if you ride your bike down the middle of the road if they don't even see you doing it. And on top of that, the vast majority of road users don't care if they do see you doing it.

[SSP]

Exactly. So why ride off to the side?

Because DLLP:

a) provides no substantial benefits in terms of safety

b) doesn't reduce the risk of flats

c) requires much more work (constant monitoring, signalling, and "look backs" per the OP).

d) requires that I be infallible (failure to notice an overtaking car in the lane could be fatal while failure to notice the same vehicle when I'm in a WOL/BL would be a non-event).

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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?
Ooh, Ooh, a conspiracy theory is emerging! Wait, let me don my tin foil helmet.

OK, I'm ready, do tell. What's the dirt? Which enemy of the Real Cyclist is behind the subterfuge? Environmental wackos, motorist organizations, bike lane construction consortiums, Walmart shoppers?

[sbhikes]

No one cares if you ride your bike down the middle of the road if they don't even see you doing it. And on top of that, the vast majority of road users don't care if they do see you doing it.

Oh brother. So why do you care if I ride my bike down the middle of the bike lane if you can't see me doing it?

[Helmet Head]

Thanks, JoeJack. :D

HH, not to be confrontational, but is "DLLP" a form of "civil disobedience," in which you violate the letter of the law in the interest of what you believe to be a more important issue, i.e., personal safety (which, if you interpret the spirit of the law, is not a violation.)
No, because DLLP does not violate the letter of any law.

[joejack951]

Because it:

a) provides no substantial benefits

b) doesn't reduce the risk of flats

c) requires much more work (constant monitoring, signalling, and "look backs" per the OP).

d) requires that I be infallible (failure to notice an overtaking car in the lane could be fatal while failure to notice the same vehicle when I'm in a WOL/BL would be a non-event).

a) Go look at some collisions involving cyclists and tell me how being positioned further left, where normal traffic is located, would not have helped.

b) You must have impeccably clean shoulders where you live. A very, very small percentage of BF members must live where you do because most do complain about debris in the shoulder.

c) Paying attention to traffic is too much work for you? I'd suggest finding a velodrome to go ride in by yourself.

d) No, you have it backwards. Failure of faster same direction traffic to notice you could be fatal. If you don't see them and are in their path, chances are their horn will alert you to that fact very quickly.

Now for oncoming and cross traffic, your failure to notice them could be fatal, especially when it's compounded by you not being positioned where they are looking for traffic. You could fail to notice them for many reasons one of which is often the perceived safety of riding off to the right of the normal traffic lanes.

[Helmet Head]

Oh brother. So why do you care if I ride my bike down the middle of the bike lane if you can't see me doing it?
Because someone might right or left hook you, or drive in front of you (causing you to crash into them), because they too can't see you doing it.

[SSP]

Now for oncoming and cross traffic, your failure to notice them could be fatal, especially when it's compounded by you not being positioned where they are looking for traffic. You could fail to notice them for many reasons one of which is often the perceived safety of riding off to the right of the normal traffic lanes.

I do ride further left when there's cross traffic (e.g., downtown). HH's silly DLLP theory is specifically limited to "ruralish low traffic volume straight roads with no intersections or driveways".

[SSP]

Because someone might right or left hook you, or drive in front of you (causing you to crash into them), because they too can't see you doing it.

But your technique is limited to roadways with no intersections or driveways...so, how would a right or left hook be involved?

[sbhikes]

On "ruralish low traffic volume straight roads with no intersections or driveways" and "zero same-direction traffic", who the hell cares what you are doing? You can dig deep for a juicy booger while pissing into the wind if you want.

[SSP]

c) Paying attention to traffic is too much work for you? I'd suggest finding a velodrome to go ride in by yourself.

I ride with a mirror and monitor traffic quite well. But, if I'm on a roadway with a WOL/BL I'm comfortable doing that from about 12" to the right of the line as I ride a straight line.

With DLLP I'd have to:

a) look back to see if there's a gap in traffic

b) determine if the gap was at least 30 seconds long

c) if so, signal my intentions, look back over my left shoulder, and then move left into the traffic lane.

d) monitor for overtaking traffic (while also monitoring for oncoming passing traffic).

e) when a car is about 15 seconds back (about 900 feet at typical overtake speeds), I'd look to see if the driver was "detecting" me via changes in their speed or lane position.

f) when the car is about 10 seconds back (about 600 feet), I'd have to signal to the right, look over my right shoulder, and move into the bike lane.

g) when the traffic passed, I'd have to start all over with a).

Yes...this does sound like a lot more work (to me) than simply riding a straight line just to the right of the line. :rolleyes:

[joejack951]

Yes...this does sound like a lot more work (to me) than simply riding a straight line just to the right of the line. :rolleyes:

So in a bike lane, you just ride with your head down looking at the line making sure you don't cross it?Obviously not exactly what you just said but if you aren't doing any of those things previously stated while riding in a bike lane, what are you looking at and monitoring?

[SSP]

Obviously not exactly what you just said...

Obviously. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

I ride with a mirror and monitor traffic quite well. But, if I'm on a roadway with a WOL/BL I'm comfortable doing that from about 12" to the right of the line as I ride a straight line.

With DLLP I'd have to:

a) look back to see if there's a gap in traffic

b) determine if the gap was at least 30 seconds long

c) if so, signal my intentions, look back over my left shoulder, and then move left into the traffic lane.

d) monitor for overtaking traffic (while also monitoring for oncoming passing traffic).

e) when a car is about 15 seconds back (about 900 feet at typical overtake speeds), I'd look to see if the driver was "detecting" me via changes in their speed or lane position.

f) when the car is about 10 seconds back (about 600 feet), I'd have to signal to the right, look over my right shoulder, and move into the bike lane.

g) when the traffic passed, I'd have to start all over with a).

Yes...this does sound like a lot more work (to me) than simply riding a straight line just to the right of the line. :rolleyes:
You make it sound much more cumbersome than it really is.
You might be to try it for a week or so.
Like anything else, once it's part of your routine it seems effortless.

[joejack951]

Obviously. :rolleyes:

So are you going to answer my question then?

....while riding in a bike lane, what are you looking at and monitoring?

[sbhikes]

So are you going to answer my question then?

....while riding in a bike lane, what are you looking at and monitoring?
Oooh ooh I'll answer it!

I watch traffic, look ahead of me for things I don't want to run into, look in my mirror for things that might run into me, and I look at the view and the nature all around me. Sometimes I even look at my speedometer. And being on a recumbent, sometimes I look at my toes.

[SSP]

Oooh ooh I'll answer it!

I watch traffic, look ahead of me for things I don't want to run into, look in my mirror for things that might run into me, and I look at the view and the nature all around me. Sometimes I even look at my speedometer. And being on a recumbent, sometimes I look at my toes.

Obviously. :)

[SSP]

You make it sound much more cumbersome than it really is.
You might be to try it for a week or so.
Like anything else, once it's part of your routine it seems effortless.

Reminds me of an old joke from the South - If you're planning on getting a job in a chicken house, you put some fresh chicken sh*t in your hatband every morning. Within a week or so, you won't notice the smell.

[Helmet Head]

Reminds me of an old joke from the South - If you're planning on getting a job in a chicken house, you put some fresh chicken sh*t in your hatband every morning. Within a week or so, you won't notice the smell.
Whatever. What's true is true...

[joejack951]

Oooh ooh I'll answer it!

I watch traffic, look ahead of me for things I don't want to run into, look in my mirror for things that might run into me, and I look at the view and the nature all around me. Sometimes I even look at my speedometer. And being on a recumbent, sometimes I look at my toes.

Ok, so you'll watch traffic and check on road conditions ahead of you while riding in the bike lane but somehow once you move into the traffic lane it suddenly becomes too cumbersome? Or by "watching traffic" do you just mean "seeing traffic" in that you know it's there but you really don't care much about it, kinda like watching a dumb show on TV?

[sbhikes]

What's too cumbersome (and this was not my compaint but someone else's) is that you have to not only watch for traffic, but for 25% of it you have to move out of the way and then move back again after they are gone.

I can watch the same traffic from the bike lane, a mere few feet away from where you will be, but I don't have to do anything at all when someone comes up behind me. Nothing at all.

And, I'm not any less safe than the dynamic power peek-a-booers out there because I can still react to the same tiny proportion of drivers who might drift into my path. The same exact drivers you will have to pull over for anyway, but only after you have ascertained that they are not reacting to you and you are now panicking "oh no they didn't react to me what do I do now? I'm going to have to move into the bike lane and they are going to kill me for sure because I'm ascared of bike lanes!"

The difference, and what makes staying in the bike lane more safe than your silly DLLP method, is that if the motorist starts to drift into me I at least know it is happening while you are left to wonder, "why the hell isn't this guy seeing me in all my glory out here??? Oh my god he's not reacting, now what do I do?" I have already done my plan B while you are still wondering if you should wait another second before pulling over.

Furthermore, while you are out there flaunting your fanny, you may be inciting a bit of road rage, providing a little encouragement to those why might see initimidating ****** bicyclist as some kind of sport. I prefer not to do that if possible. It's terribly unpleasant to be mistaken for a ****** cyclist especially since I'm a woman. But even worse to be targeted for some kind of road rage sport.

Finally, as my photographs proved in the thread I started about static lane positioning during the day, almost all the motorists are alreay pulling into the next lane and even crossing the double-yellow line to avoid me riding in the bike lane. I can't see any reason at all why I should try and force them to move over through DLLP when they already move over when I'm in the bike lane. What is there for me to gain? Absolutely nothing!

[mechBgon]

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?


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.Your own technique would call for me to have left the traffic lane at this distance on a fast highway, so I would then cease to be relevant, if the piece of wishful thinking above (in red text) were actually true. Your own argument is collapsing on itself. :) Gotcha.

Also, all the stuff about "relevance" is just you making stuff up to suit your own purpose. Just in case the newbies haven't figured that out yet. :) Trying to prop yourself up using a swerving motorist who was very, very drunk at 5:30AM is amusing. Nice try.

*resharpens the Logic prong of my stick*

Next up is joejack951.

So are you going to answer my question then?Ummm, when I get asked? (plus I was at work) Did I miss this in the database scramble? :)

shbikes' answer is fairly accurate for me too. When I'm on cruise in a bike lane, I watch primarily to the front and sides, secondarily to the rear, similarly to how I drive when I'm in the right lane of the freeway with my car. Our few bike lanes are not in scenic locations, but if I'm out on the shoulder of a highway, I'll look at the scenery when it's safe (i.e. not rocketing down a descent at 50mph). I might even be reaching into a front pannier for my camera to fire off some impromptu photos while riding...

http://www.mechbgon.com/morning.jpg

BTW at closing yesterday, I asked a couple co-workers if they'd ever been in a rear-end collision, either the collider or the "collidee." Both had, one of them three times. And so have I, so that's 3 for 3. I think you need to re-evaluate your scoffing that it's SO unlikely for a cyclist to be overlooked and struck from behind, considering how frequently it happens to automobiles. The last rear-end collision I personally witnessed would've left a cyclist with massive injuries, considering the damage it did to the cars, and that was at low speed.

[Helmet Head]

What's too cumbersome (and this was not my compaint but someone else's) is that you have to not only watch for traffic, but for 25% of it you have to move out of the way and then move back again after they are gone.

This sounds like you're speculating about how you think DLLP in wide lanes work, rather than reporting from experience.

[mechBgon]

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.Oh, and I just noticed this post, probably because I actually work while I'm at work ;).

When you choose to ride in the middle of the lane, you gamble that you will not overlook someone who also will overlook you and rear-end you, on the hope that this is less likely than a preventible drift (as opposed to sleeping motorists, etc) and the questionable presumption that your riding in the lane actually does anything to prevent preventible drifts. And if that coincidence seems incomprehensible, remember that you're the one telling us we're always overlooking stuff without realizing it.

Well, if I can overlook cyclists in a bike lane despite watching like a hawk for them, then I can overlook overtaking vehicles in a traffic lane despite watching like a hawk for them. I don't actually believe your "stuff-in-other-lanes-is-viewed-as-irrelevant" idea, but you're insisting that you do, so you're trapped by your own logic.

Check.

[Bekologist]

like i've said repeatedly,

exponentially more dangerous than riding a consistent and dynamic line common to all rules of the road.

exponentially more dangerous by placing the bicyclist directly in the path of overtaking traffic and letting it get so close as to elicit evasive driving by overtakers or oncomers.

and besides, visibility trumps lane position for cognifications sake, on "ruralish low traffic high speed low volume roads"

and just how in the heck is a narrow lane safer than a wide lane again? or a road without a shoulder or bike lane purportedly safer than a road with a 12 foot shoulder, as in the logging trucks thread...

[Helmet Head]

Oh, and I just noticed this post, probably because I actually work while I'm at work ;).

When you choose to ride in the middle of the lane, you gamble that you will not overlook someone who also will overlook you and rear-end you, on the hope that this is less likely than a preventible drift (as opposed to sleeping motorists, etc) and the questionable presumption that your riding in the lane actually does anything to prevent preventible drifts. And if that coincidence seems incomprehensible, remember that you're the one telling us we're always overlooking stuff without realizing it.

Well, if I can overlook cyclists in a bike lane despite watching like a hawk for them, then I can overlook overtaking vehicles in a traffic lane despite watching like a hawk for them. I don't actually believe your "stuff-in-other-lanes-is-viewed-as-irrelevant" idea, but you're insisting that you do, so you're trapped by your own logic.

Check.
Is this what you're saying?


The probability of the DLLP cyclist overlooking someone coming from behind is non-zero, call it P(a).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the DLLP cyclist who is up ahead directly in his path is non-zero, call it P(b).
The probability that the cyclist will get hit from behind while using DLLP in wide lanes is P(a) * P(b) = P(c).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the SLLP cyclist who is up ahead outside of his path in the bike lane is non-zero, call it P(d).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist choosing to attend to a distraction and drifting in the bike lane while his eyes are off the road at any given time is P(e).
The probability of the SLLP cyclist in the bike lane being hit from behind is P(d) * P(e) = P(f).
P(a) must be approximately equal to P(d), because, "if I can overlook cyclists in a bike lane despite watching like a hawk for them, then I can overlook overtaking vehicles in a traffic lane despite watching like a hawk for them".
P(b) must be relatively high because "I asked a couple co-workers if they'd ever been in a rear-end collision, either the collider or the 'collidee'. Both had, one of them three times. And so have I, so that's 3 for 3. "


P(c) = P(a) * P(b)
P(f) = P(d) * P(e)

I disagree with (g) because to a cyclist 2 tons coming fast from behind is much more relevant to him than a 200 lbs cyclist up ahead and off to the side is to a motorist, therefore I reject your premise that P(a) =~ P(d), and contend that P(a) << P(d).

I also reject your conclusion that P(b) must be relatively high because of the high occurence of rear-enders in general. We've talked about this before, and anyone who controls lanes much in traffic knows that a cyclist is much less likely to get overlooked and rear-ended in traffic than is a car, because of how much more attention and space we get when we're in the middle of traffic lanes. So I think P(b) is extremely low. We haven't talked much about how often drivers are distracted and attnededing to distractions, which is reflected by P(e), but I think we can all agree it all too often. I think drivers attending to distractions in general certainly happens much more often than rear-enders, so P(e) >> P(b).

So, by my calculations P(e) >> P(b), and P(d) >> P(a), therefore

P(d) * P(e) >> P(a) * P(b)

Therefore:

P(f) >> P(c)

Or:

An SLLP cyclist in the bike lane is much more likely to be hit by inadvertent drift than is a DLLP cyclist who overlooks an approaching-from-behind motorist is likely to be hit by that motorist (because that motorist also happens to overlook the DLLP cyclist).

[SSP]

Is this what you're saying?


The probability of the DLLP cyclist overlooking someone coming from behind is non-zero, call it P(a).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the DLLP cyclist who is up ahead directly in his path is non-zero, call it P(b).
The probability that the cyclist will get hit from behind while using DLLP in wide lanes is P(a) * P(b) = P(c).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the SLLP cyclist who is up ahead outside of his path in the bike lane is non-zero, call it P(d).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist choosing to attend to a distraction and drifting in the bike lane while his eyes are off the road at any given time is P(e).
The probability of the SLLP cyclist in the bike lane being hit from behind is P(d) * P(e) = P(f).
P(a) must be approximately equal to P(d), because, "if I can overlook cyclists in a bike lane despite watching like a hawk for them, then I can overlook overtaking vehicles in a traffic lane despite watching like a hawk for them".
P(b) must be relatively high because "I asked a couple co-workers if they'd ever been in a rear-end collision, either the collider or the 'collidee'. Both had, one of them three times. And so have I, so that's 3 for 3. "


P(c) = P(a) * P(b)
P(f) = P(d) * P(e)

I disagree with (g) because to a cyclist 2 tons coming fast from behind is much more relevant to him than a 200 lbs cyclist up ahead and off to the side is to a motorist, therefore I reject your premise that P(a) =~ P(d), and contend that P(a) << P(d).

I also reject your conclusion that P(b) must be relatively high because of the high occurence of rear-enders in general. We've talked about this before, and anyone who controls lanes much in traffic knows that a cyclist is much less likely to get overlooked and rear-ended in traffic than is a car, because of how much more attention and space we get when we're in the middle of traffic lanes. So I think P(b) is extremely low. We haven't talked much about how often drivers are distracted and attnededing to distractions, which is reflected by P(e), but I think we can all agree it all too often. I think drivers attending to distractions in general certainly happens much more often than rear-enders, so P(e) >> P(b).

So, by my calculations P(e) >> P(b), and P(d) >> P(a), therefore

P(d) * P(e) >> P(a) * P(b)

Therefore:

P(f) >> P(c)

Or:

An SLLP cyclist in the bike lane is much more likely to be hit by inadvertent drift than is a DLLP cyclist who overlooks an approaching-from-behind motorist is likely to be hit by that motorist (because that motorist also happens to overlook the DLLP cyclist).


Put down the crack pipe, HH, and just go ride your freakin' bike for God's sake!

[Bekologist]

I had no idea bicycling required brushing up on my algebra to learn this DLLP technique.

[mechBgon]

Is this what you're saying?


The probability of the DLLP cyclist overlooking someone coming from behind is non-zero, call it P(a).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the DLLP cyclist who is up ahead directly in his path is non-zero, call it P(b).
The probability that the cyclist will get hit from behind while using DLLP in wide lanes is P(a) * P(b) = P(c).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the SLLP cyclist who is up ahead outside of his path in the bike lane is non-zero, call it P(d).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist choosing to attend to a distraction and drifting in the bike lane while his eyes are off the road at any given time is P(e).
The probability of the SLLP cyclist in the bike lane being hit from behind is P(d) * P(e) = P(f).
P(a) must be approximately equal to P(d), because, "if I can overlook cyclists in a bike lane despite watching like a hawk for them, then I can overlook overtaking vehicles in a traffic lane despite watching like a hawk for them".
P(b) must be relatively high because "I asked a couple co-workers if they'd ever been in a rear-end collision, either the collider or the 'collidee'. Both had, one of them three times. And so have I, so that's 3 for 3. "


P(c) = P(a) * P(b)
P(f) = P(d) * P(e)

I disagree with (g) because to a cyclist 2 tons coming fast from behind is much more relevant to him than a 200 lbs cyclist up ahead and off to the side is to a motorist, therefore I reject your premise that P(a) =~ P(d), and contend that P(a) << P(d).

I also reject your conclusion that P(b) must be relatively high because of the high occurence of rear-enders in general. We've talked about this before, and anyone who controls lanes much in traffic knows that a cyclist is much less likely to get overlooked and rear-ended in traffic than is a car, because of how much more attention and space we get when we're in the middle of traffic lanes. So I think P(b) is extremely low. We haven't talked much about how often drivers are distracted and attnededing to distractions, which is reflected by P(e), but I think we can all agree it all too often. I think drivers attending to distractions in general certainly happens much more often than rear-enders, so P(e) >> P(b).

So, by my calculations P(e) >> P(b), and P(d) >> P(a), therefore

P(d) * P(e) >> P(a) * P(b)

Therefore:

P(f) >> P(c)

Or:

An SLLP cyclist in the bike lane is much more likely to be hit by inadvertent drift than is a DLLP cyclist who overlooks an approaching-from-behind motorist is likely to be hit by that motorist (because that motorist also happens to overlook the DLLP cyclist).:roflmao:

I would've thought a very large Dodge pickup truck would've been relevant to the driver of that K-car, too. But the K-car still got mashed into the rear of the pickup. Weird, huh?

It's also amusing to see you now claiming that the bike lane's mysterious power to make cyclists invisible is sort of a one-way mirror type of thing, too. Make your mind up, guy... you're saying that BF members overlook cyclists but don't know that they do, and therefore think they don't. So how do you know you're not overlooking cars, by the same anti-reverse-negative logic where you don't know that you do, because you do? Without realizing it?

:)

(maybe it involves the square root of a negative number or something?)


Oh, and I'm corresponding with a guy who is probably going to take away my King-Of-The-Blinkies crown with a dual-Nova system. :eek:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Is this what you're saying?


The probability of the DLLP cyclist overlooking someone coming from behind is non-zero, call it P(a).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the DLLP cyclist who is up ahead directly in his path is non-zero, call it P(b).
The probability that the cyclist will get hit from behind while using DLLP in wide lanes is P(a) * P(b) = P(c).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist overlooking the SLLP cyclist who is up ahead outside of his path in the bike lane is non-zero, call it P(d).
The probability of the approaching-from-behind motorist choosing to attend to a distraction and drifting in the bike lane while his eyes are off the road at any given time is P(e).
The probability of the SLLP cyclist in the bike lane being hit from behind is P(d) * P(e) = P(f).
P(a) must be approximately equal to P(d), because, "if I can overlook cyclists in a bike lane despite watching like a hawk for them, then I can overlook overtaking vehicles in a traffic lane despite watching like a hawk for them".
P(b) must be relatively high because "I asked a couple co-workers if they'd ever been in a rear-end collision, either the collider or the 'collidee'. Both had, one of them three times. And so have I, so that's 3 for 3. "


P(c) = P(a) * P(b)
P(f) = P(d) * P(e)

I disagree with (g) because to a cyclist 2 tons coming fast from behind is much more relevant to him than a 200 lbs cyclist up ahead and off to the side is to a motorist, therefore I reject your premise that P(a) =~ P(d), and contend that P(a) << P(d).

I also reject your conclusion that P(b) must be relatively high because of the high occurence of rear-enders in general. We've talked about this before, and anyone who controls lanes much in traffic knows that a cyclist is much less likely to get overlooked and rear-ended in traffic than is a car, because of how much more attention and space we get when we're in the middle of traffic lanes. So I think P(b) is extremely low. We haven't talked much about how often drivers are distracted and attnededing to distractions, which is reflected by P(e), but I think we can all agree it all too often. I think drivers attending to distractions in general certainly happens much more often than rear-enders, so P(e) >> P(b).

So, by my calculations P(e) >> P(b), and P(d) >> P(a), therefore

P(d) * P(e) >> P(a) * P(b)

Therefore:

P(f) >> P(c)

Or:

An SLLP cyclist in the bike lane is much more likely to be hit by inadvertent drift than is a DLLP cyclist who overlooks an approaching-from-behind motorist is likely to be hit by that motorist (because that motorist also happens to overlook the DLLP cyclist).

http://forum.rscnet.org/images/smilies/nut.gif

[saraflux]

i wish i still had my notes from my statistics/probability classes in college.
then i could insist that HH provide numbers so we could attempt to calculate the probabilities and put this dead horse in the f#$@$ng ground.

not to say that this thread isn't a constant source of amusement for me- it is. oh, is it ever...

can't we save the mind-numbing theoretical discussions for the folks writing books on this stuff?

...wait a second. are you writing a book HH?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

i wish i still had my notes from my statistics/probability classes in college.
then i could insist that HH provide numbers so we could attempt to calculate the probabilities and put this dead horse in the f#$@$ng ground.
You don't need no stinkin' notes. Go to the same source of information as the horse flogging wizard.

Stats made to order to fit any screwball theory.

[sbhikes]

I guess all that math and stuff which my little ol' head can't comprehend proves that DLLP is the gospel truth. You win, HH!

Peekaboo!