buahhahahaha......

what does football stadium capacities and ritualized combat have to do with bicycling again?
Football compares to combat?
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I'm trying to counter the dangerous and faulty 'lane grab' default positioning 'advice' that gets bandied about in bike forums.
Oh Puhleeez! Who do you think needs to be convinced? Who is left who is not already sick to death of this advice, either for or against? No one is getting convinced of anything except that a few posters are obsessed with endlessly repeating their advice.

Combat for those with ADD. :rolleyes:
10 secs of combat here. 5 secs there. 20 over there.
What is the gladiatorial equivalent to a kicker? :p
God I hate football. Can't even escape it in a bike forum.

Combat for those with ADD. :rolleyes:
10 secs of combat here. 5 secs there. 20 over there.
What is the gladiatorial equivalent to a kicker? :p
God I hate football. Can't even escape it in a bike forum.
You mean you prefer debating about bike lanes or HH's wacky theories and the endless counter arguments?

How about a nice game of Tic-Tac-Toe? War Games version.

There's also Bek and Dianne who are different peas in the same pod.

I would not go quite that far. Bek ventures out of the bike lane now and then. In fact I would bet a large percentage of Bek's riding (based on his posts) consists of roads with absolutely no bicycle accomodations (full-width shoulders excepted as they are designed for motorists not bicycles).

Dianne it would seem spends '95%' of her riding in BL's and paths which even in Santa Barbara I think would be highly limiting.

There is no evidence that inattentional blindness is any significant cause of road accidents.
Do you live all of your life with your head buried in the sand, or do you reserve this approach to your search for knowledge only within the field of bicycling and traffic safety?

I suggest you google for something like "inattentional blindness driving collisions" and at least take a few minutes to read and think about the topic before you form (much less express) your opinion about it.

There is plenty of evidence that shows that a human's unconscious mind is constantly filtering information based on perceived relevance. There is no evidence that indicates the mind ever stops doing this. There is no evidence suggesting that the mind stops doing this while driving.

Here's an excerpt from a particular enlightening paper entitled, "Driver Distractions and Traffic Safety". Search for "inattentional blindness" within the paper to find this excerpt:

(NOTE TO GENE: If you're reading this, please pay special attention to the last paragraph of this excerpt, as this is a point I've tried to make in countless discussions with you).


Focusing upon an object while being oblivious to a second object directly
in one's field of vision is called inattentional blindness.894 David Strayer, a
professor of psychology at University of Utah said,
"There is a part of driving that
is automatic and routine. There is a second part of driving that is completely
unpredictable, and that is the part that requires attention."895
Most of the time, driving does not take up the full attention of an
experienced driver. We humans have a very strong tendency to
'multi-task' . . .. In easy driving conditions, absent-mindedness is
probably the greatest danger. . . . Apart from simple knowledge
and vision tests for beginners, there is no diagnosis of drivers'
different abilities such as attention-dividing skills and visual
capabilities. A person could go through a lifetime with the driving
equivalent of dyslexia and never realize it . .

"People allow themselves to be distracted while driving because they think that they will still be able to pay attention to anomalies. But it is precisely those anomalous things . . ., which they won't see"as a result of inattentional
blindness. Malcolm Gladwell, a journalist, asserts that Haddon focused on what happened during and after an accident rather than what happened before because people do stupid things they can help and stupid things they can't help.898
...

Drivers have always done other things while driving. . . . Dividing
attention effectively is what good driving is all about. . . . [T]he
task is not demanding enough for full-time attention. . . . But
distractions have always been a problem and, as far back as the
1970s, a major analysis of traffic crashes . . . identified "driver
inattention" and "improper lookout" as the leading causes of
crashes.

In order to motivate individuals, one must understand their behavior. In
an attempt to explain behavior, Gerald Wilde created risk homeostasis theory.
This theory "maintains that . . . people accept a certain level of subjectively
estimated risk to their health, safety, and other things they value, in exchange for
the benefits they hope to receive" from any activity.903 Wilde claims that the
uniquely controlling variable of loss due to accidents and lifestyle-dependent
disease is the accepted level of risk because, "in the long run, the human-made
mishap rate essentially depends" on that.904 "People alter their behavior in
response to the implementation of health and safety measures, but the riskiness
of the way they behave will not change, unless those measures are capable of
motivating people to alter the amount of risk they are willing to incur."905 Wilde
presents motivation as an alternative to enforcement, education and engineering
to increase health and safety that depends on human conduct.906 "[A] sure way
to reduce the accident rate on a particular road to zero is to simply close that
road . . .. It is almost as obvious that road users will move to other roads and
that the accidents will migrate with them to other locations."907

http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/DISTRACT.PDF

I would not go quite that far. Bek ventures out of the bike lane now and then. In fact I would bet a large percentage of Bek's riding (based on his posts) consists of roads with absolutely no bicycle accomodations (full-width shoulders excepted as they are designed for motorists not bicycles).

Dianne it would seem spends '95%' of her riding in BL's and paths which even in Santa Barbara I think would be highly limiting.
Much of what Diane writes is inconsistent with other things she writes. It's likely that her 95% estimates are significant exaggerations from reality. I certainly would not jump to any conclusions about her behavior based on taking any one of her statements like this literally.

head, your lane positioning, based on 'innatentional blindness' is NOT compelling enough to ignore the safe travel psoition of as far right as practical in favor of the travel lane.


your insistence in this fallacy is amazing.

Who's Dianne?

My bad.
Daggone st-st-stuttering fingers.

Bek ventures out of the bike lane now and then. In fact I would bet a large percentage of Bek's riding (based on his posts) consists of roads with absolutely no bicycle accomodations.

hahaha. yep, I 'venture out of the bike lanes now and then'.

Over 3000 miles just on tour so far this year, where there are NOT a lot of bike lanes. my commute is maybe 30 percent acomodated. the 3000 does not include commute or weekend, non touring miles.

is that 'out of the bike lanes' enough for you armchair quarterbacks?

You mean you prefer debating about bike lanes or HH's wacky theories and the endless counter arguments?

How about a nice game of Tic-Tac-Toe? War Games version.

Who is HH? I filter out those posts without even using the ignore button :p
Tic tac toe would be cool. However, constantly having a draw is annoying.

Me thinks I will revise my opinion: football!

Thing is if I want to go anywhere without adequate bike accommodations I have to take the freeway...Oops. There's a bike lane there, too. I guess I can try the northbound freeway. There's no bike lane there.

Knock it off. I reported the above to the mods; I suggest everyone else do the same if Tom doesn't self censor. Listen: we don't need any bad ju-ju bouncing around these forums. But you probably misunderstand what I just said. I don't think HH will be affected by this post... but the writer might. If you wish ill on others, lady luck will probably not cast a kind eye on you. Just a warning.
I wasn't wishing ill luck...it was an attempt at humor! First, HH wouldn't ride I8! If no humor here well, then I'll just stay out of A & S. Have a good one:rolleyes:

I wasn't wishing ill luck...it was an attempt at humor! First, HH wouldn't ride I8! If no humor here well, then I'll just stay out of A & S. Have a good one:rolleyes:
I'm not going to make a judgement call as to the humor attempt, but FYI, parts of I-8 not too far from San Diego are indeed open to bikes.

I'm not going to make a judgement call as to the humor attempt, but FYI, parts of I-8 not too far from San Diego are indeed open to bikes.
And this includes steep sections where you could really go quite fast. 50? I'm not sure, because I've never actually ridden there.

It is the low life form of 'humor' exhibited by those who don't consider cyclists legitimate users of the road and think it is 'funny' to buzz and honk at cyclists to put them in their place. Unacceptable for anyone and a discrace for someone who thinks of themselves a cyclist.
(also reported to mods before any reponse was made)

Ok... I had to respond to Bek's comment about what football has to do with cycling. Nothing...except for the fact that in that post, I was commenting on riding the conditions. When 80,000+ people come into a town, traffic can quadruple. So the road conditions change dramatically. And those 80,000+ drunk people make doing ANY kind of biking interesting, no matter what method you use.

And yes, the officially listed capacity of OU's stadium is 82,112. And that does not include several thousand that come in to park and tailgate, and watch the game on portable tvs in their RVs, or at bars.

Knock it off. I reported the above to the mods; I suggest everyone else do the same if Tom doesn't self censor. Listen: we don't need any bad ju-ju bouncing around these forums. But you probably misunderstand what I just said. I don't think HH will be affected by this post... but the writer might. If you wish ill on others, lady luck will probably not cast a kind eye on you. Just a warning.

When I saw this report in thre Mod's Corner, I thought "OMG what did HH do to piss Tom off so severely?"

Seeing this thread in context I find this whole thing entirely laughable and wholly suport Tom's morbund sense of humor. I see no 'bad prayer fall on the preacher' about to happen. Sheesh!

http://www.rowq.com/11/juju.jpg

Ok... I had to respond to Bek's comment about what football has to do with cycling. Nothing...except for the fact that in that post, I was commenting on riding the conditions. When 80,000+ people come into a town, traffic can quadruple. So the road conditions change dramatically. And those 80,000+ drunk people make doing ANY kind of biking interesting, no matter what method you use.

And yes, the officially listed capacity of OU's stadium is 82,112. And that does not include several thousand that come in to park and tailgate, and watch the game on portable tvs in their RVs, or at bars.
The OSU Horseshoe is between my home and my office. When I go to work on Saturday, I always check the football schedule.

The OSU Horseshoe is between my home and my office. When I go to work on Saturday, I always check the football schedule.
Well at least you are aware of football stadium. I assume you must not talk much to your co-workers or neighbors, if you have to find out from the paper where the Buckeyes are playing.:)

Do you live all of your life with your head buried in the sand, or do you reserve this approach to your search for knowledge only within the field of bicycling and traffic safety?
Speaking of offensive. Well maybe not offensive, but arrogantly contemptous of all those who are not swayed by HH's sophism, or impressed with his obsession on promoting his unique approach/solutions.

I prefer to live my life with my toes buried in the sand and my ass definitely NOT stuck in a traffic jam outside a stadium. Been there, done that. Never doing it again. It's like getting a spanking after church--a few tedious hours in an uncomfortable seat in a cold place and then some punishment on the way home. Forget it. Sports are for doing, not for spectating.

Well at least you are aware of football stadium. I assume you must not talk much to your co-workers or neighbors, if you have to find out from the paper where the Buckeyes are playing.:)
The Columbus Dispatch publishes the information on game day, so they obviously think that I am not the only person in central Ohio who does not commit OSU game times to memory.

When you first said OSU, I thought Oklahoma State University... :lol:

I've got to get out of this state...

Speaking of offensive. Well maybe not offensive, but arrogantly contemptous of all those who are not swayed by HH's sophism, or impressed with his obsession on promoting his unique approach/solutions.

Sometimes I like you, sometimes I hate you. Right now I quite like you.

I prefer to live my life with my toes buried in the sand and my ass definitely NOT stuck in a traffic jam outside a stadium.

I like the way you think...

It's like getting a spanking after church--a few tedious hours in an uncomfortable seat in a cold place and then some punishment on the way home.

I really like the way you think...:D

Nah, I agree. Sports are for playing, not for spectating. Although it always is fun to size up my opponents before fencing them.

EDIT: Basically, I'm just saying +1 to the OP

The Columbus Dispatch publishes the information on game day, so they obviously think that I am not the only person in central Ohio who does not commit OSU game times to memory.

Probably for furriners in town who think football is that wierd game where they run around in short pants.
I imagine the Columbus Dispatch does a little more than just publish the starting time on game day.

If only bicycling events got 1/1,000th of that coverage, eh? But of course there are probably 10,000 to 1 more people in Columbus interested in the Buckeye football team.

at one time (turn of the 19th century) bicycling was the LARGEST spectator sport in america. NOT football or baseball.

and my OP still stands.

at one time (turn of the 19th century) bicycling was the LARGEST spectator sport in america. NOT football or baseball.

and my OP still stands.
Check your newspaper; this is the 21st century.

great. and the largest spectator sport worldwide is soccer.

does that mean you'll stop obsessing about grown men in tights?

and stay focussed on bicycling in the bicycling forums, oh pigskin worshipper?

(I could honestly care LESS how many thousands of drunken idiots you can stuff into an arena to scream at big kids chasing a pig bladder around.)

funnier still watching grown men scream at a box flashing 'instant replays' at them in a living room-

NO THANKS, I'd rather be biking..... in a safe lane position as far left as needed for safety, as far right as practical, and using clean and well accomodated roadways in the manner in which they are designed; according to legal, sound and safe vehicular bicycling practices, understanding roadway rules, signs, stripes and other regulations.

great. and the largest spectator sport worldwide is soccer.

does that mean you'll stop obsessing about grown men in tights?

and stay focussed on bicycling in the bicycling forums, oh pigskin worshipper?

(I could honestly care LESS how many thousands of drunken idiots you can stuff into an arena to scream at big kids chasing a pig bladder around.)

funnier still watching grown men scream at a box flashing 'instant replays' at them in a living room-

NO THANKS, I'd rather be biking..... in a safe lane position as far left as needed for safety, as far right as practical, and using clean and well accomodated roadways in the manner in which they are designed; according to legal, sound and safe vehicular bicycling practices, understanding roadway rules, signs, stripes and other regulations.


Yes yes, and I think this thread has digressed pretty much because we all agreed with you on your point. Or at least near enough to make this thread a success. But thank for reminding us yet again.

Oh and by the way. That was a damn fine witty post. Gave me quite a chuckle. Thanks.

I agree as well on the sports notion. Never much had the desire to waste away an afternoon in front of the tube. An occasional live game with friends can be fun though. But then again it is more about the friends than the game at that point.

I guess in the end it just comes down to what we all deem "clean and well accomodated" in our own neck of the woods. Your roads are definitely better than mine in that regard.

-D

Anyone who would believe that there are people in your first class in any numbers who still rides is an idiot.
Sorry to hear that you are not going to ride again:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=238735

Probably for furriners in town who think football is that wierd game where they run around in short pants.
I imagine the Columbus Dispatch does a little more than just publish the starting time on game day.

If only bicycling events got 1/1,000th of that coverage, eh? But of course there are probably 10,000 to 1 more people in Columbus interested in the Buckeye football team.
I took you off my ignore list because a few people quoted reasonable comments from you, but now I remember why I stopped responding to you.

You are like a little yippie dog nipping at people's heels. Bye.

I took you off my ignore list because a few people quoted reasonable comments from you, but now I remember why I stopped responding to you.

You and your announcements about who you put on your ignore list.:rolleyes: I suppose you think anyone else cares or should care.

BTW, I wouldn't dream of putting you on one; I enjoy laughing at your humorless hysterical wailing about the evils of bike lanes; especially your expert commentary about the death dealers of Portland. Almost as ridiculous as your previous expert commentary on the biking possibilities of the Lake Shore Drive (road not path) in Chicago.

For Bek; Give it up, the subject of debating HH's nutty theory on dynamic swerving and alleged default positions has been whipped to death. It's time to bury it.

until Helmet Head conclusively states, like Steve Goodrich, that when safe and acceptable conditions exist in a well provided bike lane, THAT is the default position for a bicyclist,

the subject has NOT been whipped to death.

HH will need to concede to correct and proper road positioning. his 'method' lacks following the correct rules of the road regarding lane striping, regs, etc. Head needs to absorb proper use of bike lanes (when safe and approp) into his spiel,

or else the topic hasn't been buried.


Like I said in the title of the original post,

You DON'T default to the travel lanes.......

until Helmet Head conclusively states, like Steve Goodrich, that when safe and acceptable conditions exist in a well provided bike lane, THAT is the default position for a bicyclist,

the subject has NOT been whipped to death.

HH will need to concede to correct and proper road positioning...
Fine. Keep on thrashing around in the water debating with HH and friends over this silliness; helping each other drown in your efforts to save each other's bicycling souls.

I-Like-To-Bike
This message is hidden because I-Like-To-Bike is on your ignore list.

Yip yip yip.

I agree with this, if we assume that "safe and acceptable" includes the condition that the pavement is free of sand, gravel, glass, potholes, parked cars, etc. If I see a long stretch of very wide paved shoulder or wide striped bike lane meeting these criteria, I use that pavement area by default.

However, less than 5% of my cycling miles have wide paved shoulders or bike lanes; of those, about a third are undesirable to me due to known problems with debris or parked cars, and another third are too close to junctions for me to ride that far right, or I am riding at the speed of other traffic where I don't want to ride that far right. That leaves about 1-2% of my cycling miles being on roads where I consider my "default" position to be right of a stripe on the road.

I think the main difference in our opinions is that I consider the lack of more "usable" miles of striped facilities in my city to be of no negative consequence for my safety and enjoyment as a cyclist.

-Steve Goodridge
If this is what Bek wants me to agree with, it's not going to happen.

I respect Steve's opinion a lot, but in this case I go with John Franklin, thank you very much.

If I'm on a quiet road with no same-direction traffic, I don't care how nice the bike lane or shoulder looks, I'm often going to avoid it except to allow faster-traffic to pass when they show up. Why? Because further left:


My sight lines are better to potential cross traffic from the right (which is more important than cross traffic from the left, because it's closer). This includes potential cross traffic from driveways hidden by bushes, etc. In general, I believe it's good to be in the habit of leaving plenty of buffer space on your right, which you're NOT doing when riding in a bike lane or shoulder. See the bike lane deaths thread for real-world examples of why.
I'm more conspicuous to traffic coming from behind as well as to potential cross-traffic. I believe I've written enough about this.
Keeps me more alert; keeps me from drifting into "mindless" cycling...
Not only does the pavement look clean, it is being constantly swept clean. Tiny sharp shards of glass, steel, etc that are difficult if not impossible to see from the height of a bicycle moving at speed, are constantly being swept from the travel lanes into the shoulders and bike lanes. Why ride in that invisible crap when it's not necessary to do so? Thanks, but I prefer to stay out of it and get fewer flats.

if that's the case, you need to take a few classes on how to use well-accomodated roadways in the manner in which they are designed, helemt head- integrated, on grade bike facilities AREN'T going away- there will be more and more added to more and more cities all the time.

And riding to avoid nonexistant cars and improve sightlines does NOT override the proper use of well accomodated roads, helemt head. following all rules, regs, striping and signage, in the manner in which they are designed.


oh, well. continue your fallacy in vain, mr head.

Bek, if you want to have rational debate, please address the point I've made.

there is no debate, actually, in the proper use of a well accomodated roadway in my book.

there is no debate, actually, in the proper use of a well accomodated roadway in my book.
Of course there is debate even with this BL pictured and it is because traffic is dynamic and potential items out of sight in the photograph lead to different approaches.

First traffic. If there is a approaching traffic from the other direction, some turning left, but no immediate same direction traffic, then being in the BL makes the cyclist less conspicuous to the potential left turning traffic. If there is same direction traffic, one can move over into the BL to let it pass and that same same-direction traffic provides the 'block' or visibility to prevent a left hook. But one still must be careful as if the same direction traffic passes you before you enter/clear the intersection you may be blocked by it and the left turner will not see you. So there needs to be sufficient same direction traffic to use the BL.

Second - what lays beyond or out of sight I can't tell if there is an intersection (say a gas station entrance) immediately beyond the main intersection. Being in the BL approaching the intersection may be OK with suffcient same direction traffic, but one may find on going thru it that some of those same direction vehciles will cut across the BL to get gas or groceries. Also I find that the absolute worst collection of debris collects in BL to the left of RTOL, especially in the last 10' of the BL extending about 5' into the intersection. Almost all flats I see folks in club rides start in that zone.

Al

Also I find that the absolute worst collection of debris collects in BL to the left of RTOL, especially in the last 10' of the BL extending about 5' into the intersection. Almost all flats I see folks in club rides get happen in that zone.

Al
:beer:

I've noticed BLs to the left of RTOLs are the worst for debris collection too, perhaps because crap is being swept in from both sides?

Bek, if you want to have rational debate, please address the point I've made.

You want him to talk about your head? :p

:beer:

I've noticed BLs to the left of RTOLs are the worst for debris collection too, perhaps because crap is being swept in from both sides?

Show me a picture of such a bad condition bike lane. If you have found one, your mayor should fire your city engineer. OR, you should move to anotber city.

Here in Ottawa, even in the height of winter storms, there is no snow accommodated on any bike lanes that are located to the left of the RTOL. They are swept clean by snow ploughs. Such BL's are cleaner than your dinner table, except for the salt.

a bike lane safe enough for helmet head to dart into in the face of overtaking traffic is as safe of a road position in the absence of the traffic causing him to exit the travel lane in the first place.

if a bike lane is safe to move into using helmet heads 'peek-a-boo' dart and weave techniques, if it is safe to use in the presence of same direction traffic it is also safe in the ABSENCE of the same traffic.....

the absence of same direction traffic does NOT make a bike lane on a well accomodated roadway unsafe. what a fallacy you perpetuate, helemt head.

Show me a picture of such a bad condition bike lane. If you have found one, your mayor should fire your city engineer. OR, you should move to anotber city.

Here in Ottawa, even in the height of winter storms, there is no snow accommodated on any bike lanes that are located to the left of the RTOL. They are swept clean by snow ploughs. Such BL's are cleaner than your dinner table, except for the salt.
San Diego is huge. Population density is too thin to afford regular and frequent enough street cleaning to clear the bike lanes. It's also unnecessary, if you stay out of the bike lanes.

yeah, theres an exception to the rule of using a well accomodated roadway in the manner in which it is designed. what about all the potholes in the travel lanes, that are a result of population denisty too thin to allow regular and frequent pothole filling....


hahaha, what a fallacious position you take mr head!

Second - what lays beyond or out of sight I can't tell if there is an intersection (say a gas station entrance) immediately beyond the main intersection. Being in the BL approaching the intersection may be OK with suffcient same direction traffic, but one may find on going thru it that some of those same direction vehciles will cut across the BL to get gas or groceries.

Here in Ottawa, beyond the main intersection, there is usually a bus stop. And transit buses do have the legal right to cut across the bike lane to unload and load passengers (including bicycles, if any cyclist are taking also the bus). AND of course if there is a gas station or what not, cars do cut across to fill up (I do when I am behind wheels). Of course, when they do that, they must yield the right of way to any cyclists on the bike lane (motorists do yield to me when I ride on such circumstance).

The idea is: a bike lane IS a legal traffic lane and must be treated as such according to the rule of the road. As a motorist, if you cross a bike lane (as a matter of fact, any lane) improperly and hit a cyclist who has a right of way, it is your fault --- if police does not go after you, insurance companies will. Just watch your premium go up the roof.

Also I find that the absolute worst collection of debris collects in BL to the left of RTOL, especially in the last 10' of the BL extending about 5' into the intersection. Almost all flats I see folks in club rides start in that zone.

Al

Your city council is pretty stupid. Tell your mayor that he should fire the city engineer or the city may be open for law suits if there is an accident. Here in Ottawa, such bike lanes are clear of debris, even cleared of snow in the height of winter.

San Diego is huge. Population density is too thin to afford regular and frequent enough street cleaning to clear the bike lanes. It's also unnecessary, if you stay out of the bike lanes.

I am always of the opinion that it is NOT the bike lane itself that is to be blamed. It is the atitude of the community, in particular, the local Government, from city engineers to law enforcement officers, towards the bicycle (as a viable means of transportation) that has to be blamed. The fact is: bike lane or no bike lane, you are still a no-match for two ton of steel in an accident.