Cyclist Hit by train: Inadvertent drift?

[Dogbait]

Let' see, "inadvertent drift" in the subject line, Helmet Head posts to clarify the term (I believe he's the one who started using it here) and everyone moans that he's posting about something he's posted about before, as if he's the first person on this forum to post often about the same topic with a similarly worded post.

If it's a matter of you not enjoying his posts, then put him on ignore.

Who said anything about inadvertant drift?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head............. I'm not aware of forum guideline against "steering threads off topic".].............

and from the cited forum guidelines:
"Disruption
Posts which intend to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news ".......... (emphasis added)

As a matter of fact, I find his posts, as well as yours, very enjoyable and entertaining, in an inaccurate sort of way. :rolleyes:

[AlmostTrick]

The thread was obviously designed as a stab at HH, so he has the right to make use of the situation however he sees fit -- which he managed to do without resorting to name calling. A classic case of making lemonade when life hands you lemons :)

:beer:

[joejack951]

You do realize that the whole point of this thread was not to get into a debate on VC, but rather point out the absurdity of so many posts on A&S where the cyclist is considered a victim rather than the perpetrator? It was satire. The train cannot be at fault. The train cannot drift. It was the cyclist's fault 100%. There is nothing for you to explain whether it be in simple terms or complex terms. So please, stop explaining.

I do find it interesting that the original poster was poking fun at how A&S threads usually turn into bashing motorists for all of their stupid mistakes that kill. Often, HH shows up and points out what the cyclist could have done better in the situation to avoid the accident. He is then usually bashed for claiming that the motorist was not at fault, without ever saying anything of the sort. I'm sure I can find at least 10 threads of cyclists killed in bike lanes where the discussion went as such.

Sometimes I wonder if people are really even reading the threads in this forum or just ranting any time they see a certain someone or key phrase.

[Helmet Head]

Who said anything about inadvertant drift?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head............. I'm not aware of forum guideline against "steering threads off topic".].............

and from the cited forum guidelines:
"Disruption
Posts which intend to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news ".......... (emphasis added)

As a matter of fact, I find his posts, as well as yours, very enjoyable and entertaining, in an inaccurate sort of way. :rolleyes:
The focus of this forum is bicycling advocacy and safety.

The purpose of my post was clearly not to steer the topic from that focus. It was all about safety (or at least my opinion about it, which you're supposed to show respect, whether you agree with it or not). The posts whining about my post, however...

[joejack951]

Who said anything about inadvertant drift?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head............. I'm not aware of forum guideline against "steering threads off topic".].............

and from the cited forum guidelines:
"Disruption
Posts which intend to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news ".......... (emphasis added)

As a matter of fact, I find his posts, as well as yours, very enjoyable and entertaining, in an inaccurate sort of way. :rolleyes:

Read the thread title: Cyclist Hit by train: Inadvertent drift?

There's your reference. As MarkS pointed out so eloquently, HH made some lemonade.

[Helmet Head]

I do find it interesting that the original poster was poking fun at how A&S threads usually turn into bashing motorists for all of their stupid mistakes that kill. Often, HH shows up and points out what the cyclist could have done better in the situation to avoid the accident. He is then usually bashed for claiming that the motorist was not at fault, without ever saying anything of the sort. I'm sure I can find at least 10 threads of cyclists killed in bike lanes where the discussion went as such.

Sometimes I wonder if people are really even reading the threads in this forum or just ranting any time they see a certain someone or key phrase.
Despite my challenges to explain things simply, some folks like joejack obviously do get it. Maybe the true geniuses on this forum are those who can make sense of what I'm saying.

[slowandsteady]

I do find it interesting that the original poster was poking fun at how A&S threads usually turn into bashing motorists for all of their stupid mistakes that kill. Often, HH shows up and points out what the cyclist could have done better in the situation to avoid the accident. He is then usually bashed for claiming that the motorist was not at fault, without ever saying anything of the sort. I'm sure I can find at least 10 threads of cyclists killed in bike lanes where the discussion went as such.

Sometimes I wonder if people are really even reading the threads in this forum or just ranting any time they see a certain someone or key phrase.


I can only read a few posts in this forum before I get cramps. I rest a while, then read a few more. Maybe I need more electrolytes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Despite my challenges to explain things simply, some folks like joejack obviously do get it. Maybe the true geniuses on this forum are those who can make sense of what I'm saying.
Un-dang-believable! Making Lemonade? Indeed. This statement is the essence of HH brand Lemonade.

[SingingSabre]

I can only read a few posts in this forum before I get cramps. I rest a while, then read a few more. Maybe I need more electrolytes.

No, those aren't cramps. Those are actually the sensations you get when your spleen starts to implode from too much speculative A&S nonsense.

Basically, this thread was titled with a witty parody of what many, many threads devolve into. One could say that the sarcasm was cranking out 400 watts.

HH didn't see the sarcasm and decided to respond as if he were debating another VC thread or VC hijacking. One could say that while sarcasm was cranking out 400 watts, HH missed the course markings and rode away from the race.

As amusing as this thread is (oh, and trust me, it's hilarious!), it should be closed.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

As amusing as this thread is (oh, and trust me, it's hilarious!), it should be closed.
Heck no. There too many lemons still left to be squeezed.

[N_C]

It can be assumptions like this that result in people getting hit by trains.

Al,

You're right. I should also have mentioned & am mentioning now that regardless of hearing, not hearing a train or the horn, ALWAYS STOP & LOOK BOTH WAYS if in doubt. And especially if there are obstructions preventing you from seeing up or down the tracks upon the approach to the tracks until you get closer to the crossing. Not all crossings have the lights & are just marked with a sign, nothing more.

[sbhikes]

It may be yellow but it ain't lemonade.

[genec]

I do find it interesting that the original poster was poking fun at how A&S threads usually turn into bashing motorists for all of their stupid mistakes that kill. Often, HH shows up and points out what the cyclist could have done better in the situation to avoid the accident. He is then usually bashed for claiming that the motorist was not at fault, without ever saying anything of the sort. I'm sure I can find at least 10 threads of cyclists killed in bike lanes where the discussion went as such.


What I find amazing is that so many of us can so accurately know exactly what happened in an collision situation that we have not witnessed and know so little of where it may have occured. I really think this is the primary source for much of the HH bashing... in that he always responds in a self sure way that he just knows how and what caused the collision... from behind the comfort of his keyboard. Further, he tends to proclaim that B will occur if you do A... meanwhile, life has far more variables then even he can account for.

[SSP]

I tried to cover all that as succinctly as I could in the first post to this thread.

For the sake of all that's true, please, please never use the word "succinct" to describe your posts. :rolleyes:

[SSP]

Un-dang-believable! Making Lemonade? Indeed. This statement is the essence of HH brand Lemonade.

In HH's case, it's Kool-Aid.

[Helmet Head]

What I find amazing is that so many of us can so accurately know exactly what happened in an collision situation that we have not witnessed and know so little of where it may have occured. I really think this is the primary source for much of the HH bashing... in that he always responds in a self sure way that he just knows how and what caused the collision... from behind the comfort of his keyboard. Further, he tends to proclaim that B will occur if you do A... meanwhile, life has far more variables then even he can account for.
I understand that is the impression you get.

But please note your inability to cite any specific examples of any of it, despite the thousands of posts I have made.

I know I am very careful to not make any absolute statements about what happened in specific incidents. However, I will do things like note that there is general consensus that this or that happenened, and to make statements assuming this is true. This is very different from what you allege that I do. For example, in the recent right hook discussion, you made similar claims about there being "all sorts of variables" implying that nothing could really be known about what happened. So I provided a list of facts that were generally agreed to be true not only with respect to this particular right hook, but countless others similar to it.



Road with bike lane at outside of road.
Cyclist riding at outside of road (in bike lane) approaching a place where a right turn can be made.
Cyclist is not turning right.
Same-direction right-turning motorist is catching up with cyclist on cyclist's left as cyclist approaches right turn place.
Motorist did not notice cyclist in time and/or underestimated cyclist's speed and/or didn't care if he cut him off.
Cyclist did not recognize being in a right hook scenario until it was almost too late.
Cyclist apparently did not recognize he was in a potential right hook scenario sufficiently early to take preemptive/defensive action (check for motorists sufficiently early, notice motorist approaching, shoulder check, negotiate, merge left, slow down, etc.).

There also appears to be consensus among everyone who has responded here that the motorist violated the cyclist's legal right of way by turning right when he did (whether he turned in front of him or into him is not entirely clear nor relevant to this point).


Is this an example of my responding "in a self sure way that he just knows how and what caused the collision"? Is there anything in that list that you're not sure about? If you're not unsure about any of it, then what's wrong with me citing these facts "in a self sure way"?

As far as proclaiming that "B will occur if you do A.", again, I'm careful to use generalized language when I'm talking about generalities. For example, from my first post in the right hook thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3613670&postcount=16):


Your behavior, which is all that you have any control over, was a significant contributory factor in this incident.


The significant contributory factor language is intentional and typical of how I write. It is NOT "you did A so B occurred", which is how you, apparently, read it.

But if you can cite any specific examples of what I have written that support what you claim above, I'd appreciate having it brought to my attention.

[Helmet Head]

It may be yellow but it ain't lemonade.

For the sake of all that's true, please, please never use the word "succinct" to describe your posts. :rolleyes:

In HH's case, it's Kool-Aid.
Hurling insults is an interesting way to express respectful disagreement with another's opinion.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

In HH's case, it's Kool-Aid.
Agreed. And there is the loyal handful of fellow acolytes who can never get enough.

[genec]

But if you can cite any specific examples of what I have written that support what you claim above, I'd appreciate having it brought to my attention.

The easiest fastest way for me to prove my point is to refer you to this thread, http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=259472&page=2 where a video is available that clearly shows the rider "centerish" to use your language (and your prefered position), and yet you respond and tell the rider to try moving further to the left. Nice job. Clearly the cyclist was not (in your mind) occupying the lane well enough.

The more complicated answer is in your responses to my old accidents that I mentioned in response to a queary last year. Situations where you attempted to perform some CSI like post accident forensics and were quite wrong about the situations. You were not there, you did not see what happened and you were wrong about your assumptions.

Those are the best examples I can give... beyond that, I am sure that your "experieces" in Portland :rolleyes: make you an expert on the cycling situation there which you so often comment upon.

Futher "in depth analysis" can also be found on your Bike Lane Deaths (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=143989) thread, where you have commented so often, but again have never even visited the sites of the vehicle/bike collisions and therefore have no clue about what really happened. That thread is wide open for anyone to examine your fine work.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

That thread is wide open for anyone to examine your fine work.
Surely, you jest.

[sbhikes]

Here's why I keep HH on ignore: As IF an inch here or a facial tic there had so much power. I mean c'mon! Right of way is right of way.

The law doesn't say, Well, you have right of way except if you do not pick the Serge-approved inch of roadway to exercise it at any particular fraction of time.

The law also doesn't say, Well, you should expect other drivers to be courteous and drive defensively, unless you don't pick the right split second of time to issue a signal, or for chrissakes, if you don't glare at them just so; then anything goes, you get what you deserve.

And, the law DEFINITELY doesn't say that for any and sundry tiny imperceptible, and outright IMAGINARY "errors" you ever do on a bicycle, no matter there is a citable statute of the law the driver actually disobeyed, the right and proper punishment for you is death, for which all of us Forester apostles get to come a'dancing on your grave to the tune of "I told you so."

These are the messages of HH's "fine work."

[dobber]

Cycling doesn't require this vocabulary. However, communicating in English about effective and safe cycling in traffic among vehicles operated by humans is aided by understanding and conveying the concepts represented by such terms.

Making up words / expressions doesn't give your concepts validity. You just sound more retarded.

[Helmet Head]

The easiest fastest way for me to prove my point is to refer you to this thread, http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=259472&page=2 where a video is available that clearly shows the rider "centerish" to use your language (and your prefered position), and yet you respond and tell the rider to try moving further to the left. Nice job. Clearly the cyclist was not (in your mind) occupying the lane well enough.

The more complicated answer is in your responses to my old accidents that I mentioned in response to a queary last year. Situations where you attempted to perform some CSI like post accident forensics and were quite wrong about the situations. You were not there, you did not see what happened and you were wrong about your assumptions.

Those are the best examples I can give... beyond that, I am sure that your "experieces" in Portland :rolleyes: make you an expert on the cycling situation there which you so often comment upon.

Futher "in depth analysis" can also be found on your Bike Lane Deaths (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=143989) thread, where you have commented so often, but again have never even visited the sites of the vehicle/bike collisions and therefore have no clue about what really happened. That thread is wide open for anyone to examine your fine work.
Again, I'm sure you believe what you're saying is true. But let's look at the facts. In the link you provided, you didn't even bother to note the specific words that I wrote, much less show how they proved your point. Here they are:

Only thing I can suggest is keep monitoring in the mirror, looking back over your left shoulder and/or using the slow/stop hand signal when they are getting too close, and continue moving further left if they're still trying to squeeze in.
Note the opening words... Only thing I can suggest is .... That wording alone suggests in and of itself that I recognize there may very well be nothing else Al could do. The only suggestion I have, just in case, is looking back, use the stop signal ,and moving further left. It's a suggestion. It's not a statement of guarantee that this will work. What's wrong with that? How is this an example of anything you suggested?

Is this an example of responds in a self sure way that he just knows how and what caused the collision? (granted in this case we're talking close pass, not collision). Do you really not see this in the "in case you haven't tried it yet, maybe this will help" spirit I intended it to be?

Is this an example of proclaim that B will occur if you do A?

I think that when you read the words carefully, it's obvious that it's not. But what's interesting here is that you present it as if it is. Is this an isolated exception, or is it a typical example of how you misread and misinterpret what I write, and remember it to be more extreme than what I actually wrote? Note your own words above: Clearly the cyclist was not (in your mind) occupying the lane well enough. . Clearly? Really? What did I say that made it clear to that that's what I was thinking? It's not a possibility that I ruled out, to be sure. But that's a far cry from being sure that that's what was going on. In fact, it's not so much a matter of "not occupying the lane well enough", but, if anything, perhaps not communicating individually enough (with lateral adjustments, lookbacks, hand signals, etc.). But it's obviously just surmising on my part. How could it be anything but that?

As far as the old accidents to which you refer and the alleged wrong assumptions I made, again, I'm sure that's how you remember it. But your track record (including this most recent example above) shows how your reading comprehension and/or memory plays tricks on you. Can you even remember a single specific assumption that I made that was not support by the facts, and, in fact, was wrong?

And with respect to the Portland comments, for which I have gotten criticism from others, whenever I had gone back and actually pointed out the highly qualified statements I made, the critics got mute. By "highly qualified" I mean that again I'm careful to say things like "If it's true that X then Y" (yet I'm criticized for claiming I "know" X is true when I wasn't even there). I'll also typically say things like, "based on the number of this and that, it seems to me that blah blah blah". Do I really need to spell out I'm surmising when my language is clearly doing that already?

Again, I challenge you to find SPECIFIC examples of my actual words that support your claims.

I also urge you to take a bit more time to carefully read what someone is writing, and really make sure you understand their intent, if you're going to pass judgment about it.

[Helmet Head]

Making up words / expressions doesn't give your concepts validity. You just sound more retarded.
Assigning terms to concepts makes it easier to refer to them without having to repeat the entire concept each time, that's all. It's the reason we have names for anything, really.

If someone doing that makes them sound retarded to you, that's a reflection on you.

(shaking my head in disbelief)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Assigning terms to concepts makes it easier to refer to them without having to repeat the entire concept each time, that's all. It's the reason we have names for anything, really.

If someone doing that makes them sound retarded to you, that's a reflection on you.

(shaking my head in disbelief)
Hmmmm! Koolaid, tastes good. Have some.

[dobber]

Despite my challenges to explain things simply, some folks like joejack obviously do get it. Maybe the true geniuses on this forum are those who can make sense of what I'm saying.


Assigning terms to concepts makes it easier to refer to them without having to repeat the entire concept each time, that's all. It's the reason we have names for anything, really.

If someone doing that makes them sound retarded to you, that's a reflection on you.

Or perhaps your concepts are so inane as to defy understanding.

(heads nod in agreement)

[Helmet Head]

Or perhaps your concepts are so inane as to defy understanding.

(heads nod in agreement)
Except there are some who obviously do understand and even agree with much of it, and there are many who understand but disagree, so that can't be it.

[dobber]

Except there are some who obviously do understand and even agree with much of it, and there are many who understand but disagree, so that can't be it.

Or so you think.

[Wogsterca]

Or so you think.

Gee, four pages of comments, on this one, haven't you folks ever heard of sarcasm?

Sometimes I think A&S should be TLOLGL - The Little Old Ladies Gossip League......

[dobber]

Gee, four pages of comments, on this one, haven't you folks ever heard of sarcasm?

Sometimes I think A&S should be TLOLGL - The Little Old Ladies Gossip League......


I prefer the "The Repetitive HH Regurgitation

[saraflux]

trains can actually be quite silent.
i spent some time hopping trains, and know from experience that the trains in/near a yard are occasionally just a few cars that have been pushed with the engine detached from the cars. they can glide along the tracks making sounds no louder than whatever ambient noise there is. scary. and dangerous...

[genec]

Note the opening words... Only thing I can suggest is .... That wording alone suggests in and of itself that I recognize there may very well be nothing else Al could do. The only suggestion I have, just in case, is looking back, use the stop signal ,and moving further left. It's a suggestion. It's not a statement of guarantee that this will work. What's wrong with that? How is this an example of anything you suggested?

Let's examine "moving left." At what point is "moving left" enough? "Move left" is your most common "suggestion," but at what point has a cyclist moved left enough... and when? Your usual suggestion is "centerish," which clearly the cyclist in the video was doing, so now you suggest even more left. What, 2 inches, 2 cm, or when you just finally move in front of the overtaking vehicle that is closing in this case on him at a rate of about 20MPH.

Do you suggest simply constantly looking over your shoulder and crowding the motorist... in hopes that they will finally get the message? Or is it conceivable that some motorists "just don't get it," and that no more "moving left" will ever convey anything to these simple, narrow minded, driving Neanderthals who have no concept what so ever that cyclists are allowed on the road and have full rights to the road? Why do they have no concept... could it be that some "advocates" simply believe that we don't need to inform motorists? (something along the lines of your "behind in the saddle" should convey that message to them... riiiiight.)

In your mind, it is the wayward cyclist who is primarily at fault... that they should grab and hold all their roadway and take more if the message isn't clear to a motorist... meanwhile, moving more left in that very dynamic moving vehicle situation puts the cyclist in harms way... at a minimum from the mirror of the passing van... but your suggestion... "try moving more left." As if at any time any of us will know exactly how much "left" an approaching motorist will need before they "get it," if they ever do. ("Well I moved left, but it wasn't enough, so I better move more left next time... and more left after that, and more left...")

How about you admit that the cyclist was in the requisite "centerish" position and had done what was right... and the motorist was aggressive and at fault. And perhaps moving left might have put the cyclist in harms way.

As far as the A leads to B... you want me to search through the forums, find specific language and quote you... sorry, don't have the time. But we can use the well worn messages that you so often chant... how about the old Powerweave message... that if you "dance" before the motorist they will see you, but otherwise they will not. If A then B.

How about the numourous logic tests that you throw out from time to time. Where you challange a poster to a specific word contest... does "is" really mean IS?

The part that you inevitably forget is that we are not alone on the road, and that it takes two to tango... and if one of the partners out there on the road is not "dancing," but is just being a bully for some reason (perhaps out of their simple belief that bikes belong on sidewalks) they might not care at all for your "just move left a bit more."

While you couch your words in "...suggests in and of itself that I recognize there may very well be nothing..." You have never been ready to admit that perhaps we do need to tell the driving public that they have a responsibilty to share the road... that it is not just a "suggestion" to them, but a responsibility.

Train cyclists all you want... clearly some need it. But don't forget the driving public might need a reminder or two also... and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... not a subtle message that only the hyper aware can detect. (as if a harried motorist can tell if you are pedaling or not... sheesh) :rolleyes:

[genec]

Surely, you jest.

Yes, I do. It was sarcasm.

[sbhikes]

Let's examine "moving left." At what point is "moving left" enough? "Move left" is your most common "suggestion," but at what point has a cyclist moved left enough... and when? Your usual suggestion is "centerish," which clearly the cyclist in the video was doing, so now you suggest even more left. What, 2 inches, 2 cm, or when you just finally move in front of the overtaking vehicle that is closing in this case on him at a rate of about 20MPH.

Do you suggest simply constantly looking over your shoulder and crowding the motorist... in hopes that they will finally get the message? Or is it conceivable that some motorists "just don't get it," and that no more "moving left" will ever convey anything to these simple, narrow minded, driving Neanderthals who have no concept what so ever that cyclists are allowed on the road and have full rights to the road? Why do they have no concept... could it be that some "advocates" simply believe that we don't need to inform motorists? (something along the lines of your "behind in the saddle" should convey that message to them... riiiiight.)

In your mind, it is the wayward cyclist who is primarily at fault... that they should grab and hold all their roadway and take more if the message isn't clear to a motorist... meanwhile, moving more left in that very dynamic moving vehicle situation puts the cyclist in harms way... at a minimum from the mirror of the passing van... but your suggestion... "try moving more left." As if at any time any of us will know exactly how much "left" an approaching motorist will need before they "get it," if they ever do. ("Well I moved left, but it wasn't enough, so I better move more left next time... and more left after that, and more left...")

How about you admit that the cyclist was in the requisite "centerish" position and had done what was right... and the motorist was aggressive and at fault. And perhaps moving left might have put the cyclist in harms way.

As far as the A leads to B... you want me to search through the forums, find specific language and quote you... sorry, don't have the time. But we can use the well worn messages that you so often chant... how about the old Powerweave message... that if you "dance" before the motorist they will see you, but otherwise they will not. If A then B.

How about the numourous logic tests that you throw out from time to time. Where you challange a poster to a specific word contest... does "is" really mean IS?

The part that you inevitably forget is that we are not alone on the road, and that it takes two to tango... and if one of the partners out there on the road is not "dancing," but is just being a bully for some reason (perhaps out of their simple belief that bikes belong on sidewalks) they might not care at all for your "just move left a bit more."

While you couch your words in "...suggests in and of itself that I recognize there may very well be nothing..." You have never been ready to admit that perhaps we do need to tell the driving public that they have a responsibilty to share the road... that it is not just a "suggestion" to them, but a responsibility.

Train cyclists all you want... clearly some need it. But don't forget the driving public might need a reminder or two also... and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... not a subtle message that only the hyper aware can detect. (as if a harried motorist can tell if you are pedaling or not... sheesh) :rolleyes:

As long as there is always a little more "left" available, or a few more imperceptible wiggles you could do with your eyebrows or your fanny, there will always be an opportunity for a John Forester apostle to do the "I told you so" dance, which is really all they care about. As long as they can come across as knowing something the rest of us plebes do not, they have hope we'll part with our hard-earned money and take one of their classes or support one of their causes.

Furthermore, and I realize I fail at this as much as anybody, the more we argue with these Forester apostles the more we provide support for their point of view, and the more we provide opportunities for them to put it forward.

[noisebeam]

In some of the cases I posted video from, my communication, lane position, etc. made no difference as to how I was treated.

But in the vast majority of cases my lane positioning, even if subtle changes, my communication, even facial expressions (but mostly hand signals), have prevented or quickly stopped poor treatment. But these don't make for good stories or video as nothing much happens.

Al

[genec]

In some of the cases I posted video from, my communication, lane position, etc. made no difference as to how I was treated.

But in the vast majority of cases my lane positioning, even if subtle changes, my communication, even facial expressions (but mostly hand signals), have prevented or quickly stopped poor treatment. But these don't make for good stories or video as nothing much happens.

Al

Sure and I too have stopped cars from overtaking me in many situations... but the FACT remains that there are motorists that will not respond or may respond negatively to further action on your part. Issueing the old "move left" order as standard fare just doesn't take into account the reality of what may really be happening at that moment. That is my chief complaint... that armchair advocates are so quick to pass judgement with so few facts... or without pedaling a mile in your shoes.

Serge was very quick to assume that I needed LAB class to learn how to "properly" ride a bike. I could have quite easily taught the classes. (I did learn how to adjust index shifters... took all of 10 minutes.)

While some cyclists really do need some remedial training... that is not the case for all of us... and at the same time, a large portion of the driving population DOES need to be informed of our rights to the road. Just ask any motorist... the answers will surprise you. (some folks are down right hostile... as any of the radio talk shows mentioned on A&S can show you)

Granted, we are primarily responsible for ourselves on the road, but it sure would be nice if we didn't have to work so hard to maintain our ROW. There are times when I fight for it, and that is pure nonsense.

[Helmet Head]

Let's examine "moving left." At what point is "moving left" enough? "Move left" is your most common "suggestion," but at what point has a cyclist moved left enough... and when? Your usual suggestion is "centerish," which clearly the cyclist in the video was doing, so now you suggest even more left. What, 2 inches, 2 cm, or when you just finally move in front of the overtaking vehicle that is closing in this case on him at a rate of about 20MPH.
Every situation is different. Sometimes the right tire track is "moving left" enough. Sometimes the left tire track is what is required. Sometimes no amount of moving left is enough, because they will honk and/or pass closely no matter where you ride. But in at least some of the cases where Al was passed closely, it seemed like he was riding along a straight trajectory without any lateral adjustments, near the right tire track, perhaps a bit left of it. In such a situation, perhaps, moving more left might help, particularly if it's timed well. Maybe.

A few months ago I was corresponding with my friend Dan about the left-arm slow/stop signal. Turned out I was using it more often than he was (me daily, he rarely), even though our commutes were on comparable roads (high speed arterials). In our discussion, I told him how on e/b LJVD as I was crossing over I-5 I would control the rightmost through lane with a centerish position, and I found that drivers approaching from behind were helped when I issued the slow/stop signal. That is, they seemed unsure of what to do, and then, when I issued the signal, they immediately "got the message" and changed lanes. He suggested I might accomplish the same thing through lane position alone by riding further left, near the left tire track. Here is what he wrote:


I have no doubt that the slow signal works, what I was wondering was whether a more leftward static lane position or a lane position movement more leftward as the motorists approach, which I typically use in similar situations to encourage passing would have the same effect. Basically I'm lazy, and it is a lot easier to either use a static lane position that works or adjust my lane position a bit, rather than reach back, change my cadence and lose speed to give the slow signal. In other words, if there is a less energy costly way to achieve the same effect, I'd prefer that to the use of the "manual brake lights".


I tried it, and, you know what? He was right. I can only surmise that being further left my position was making it clearer that passing me within the lane was not an option, and that I wanted folks to pass me. All I know for sure is that as soon as I adopted that position, I didn't have nearly as many opportunities to use the slow/stop signal anymore, because drivers were changing lanes to pass me sooner. The point is I wouldn't have thought riding near the left tire track v.s. the center of the lane would have made much of a difference unless Dan had suggested it.

Do you suggest simply constantly looking over your shoulder and crowding the motorist... in hopes that they will finally get the message?
If you're controlling the lane you're controlling the lane. One lane-controlling position does not "crowd" the motorists more than another one. However, depending on the circumstances, sometimes one lane position will be respected as lane-controlling, while another will not be. You're searching for the former, and that's what the suggestion to move further left is about.

Or is it conceivable that some motorists "just don't get it," and that no more "moving left" will ever convey anything to these simple, narrow minded, driving Neanderthals who have no concept what so ever that cyclists are allowed on the road and have full rights to the road?
Yes, that is conceivable. I thought I made that clear.

Why do they have no concept...
You just jumped from "conceivable" to assuming it to be true. Why?

could it be that some "advocates" simply believe that we don't need to inform motorists? (something along the lines of your "behind in the saddle" should convey that message to them... riiiiight.)
No. The fact that some tiny minority of the tiny minority of cycling advocates of the tiny minority of the population that are cyclists believe that informing motorists about cyclist rights is a relatively ineffective use of advocacy resources is definitely not why those who "have no concept" have no concept.

In your mind, it is the wayward cyclist who is primarily at fault...
That's incorrect. Why do you confuse my belief that the cyclist has the most motivation and much influence (often unused) in these situations with thinking that the cyclist is at fault?

that they should grab and hold all their roadway and take more if the message isn't clear to a motorist...
It's not about "taking more of the roadway". it's about being more clear about controlling the lane that is too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side. Again, if you're controlling the lane, then control the lane. If you're confusing controlling the lane with "taking more of the roadway" while sitting at your keyboard, how do you expect to effectively convey what you're doing while riding?

meanwhile, moving more left in that very dynamic moving vehicle situation puts the cyclist in harms way... at a minimum from the mirror of the passing van...
Not if he moved further left when the van was still for enough back. I didn't suggest moving further left while the van is already passing him! The key is to be observing them approaching from behind. If they're getting too close without slowing down or moving left to change lanes fast enough, then they're not getting the message:that's when I would try moving further left.

but your suggestion... "try moving more left." As if at any time any of us will know exactly how much "left" an approaching motorist will need before they "get it," if they ever do. ("Well I moved left, but it wasn't enough, so I better move more left next time... and more left after that, and more left...")
It's a dynamic and iterative process involving observation, adjustment (either lateral movement, looking back, or using the slow/stop signal, as appropriate), more observation, more adjustment, etc. If you're expecting to just find one magic lateral position where suddenly everyone "gets it" and treats you right, you're doomed for failure. You need to communicate with each individual independently. Something might work with one driver that won't register with the next one.

How about you admit that the cyclist was in the requisite "centerish" position and had done what was right... and the motorist was aggressive and at fault. And perhaps moving left might have put the cyclist in harms way.
First, there is no such thing as the requisite "centerish" position. Where exactly that is varies from situation to situation, and sometimes even from second to second. It's not about whether Al did anything right or wrong. It is not about whether the motorist was aggressive and at fault (clearly he was). It is about whether there was anything Al could have done, like, perhaps, move left closer to the left tire track (and, again, earlier, not while he was already being passed).

As far as the A leads to B... you want me to search through the forums, find specific language and quote you... sorry, don't have the time. But we can use the well worn messages that you so often chant... how about the old Powerweave message... that if you "dance" before the motorist they will see you, but otherwise they will not. If A then B.
I have never written anything that meant if you "dance" before the motorist they will see you, but otherwise they will not.. There are no such absolutes in human behavior, and I try to never write in absolute language regarding human behavior, particularly when I'm writing about behavior in traffic. You really need to take the time to read more carefully if you're going to pass judgments about the meaning of what you read.

How about the numourous logic tests that you throw out from time to time. Where you challange a poster to a specific word contest... does "is" really mean IS?
How about it? Again, based on your track record, whatever you're thinking it means is probably not what the actual words support. But that can't be verified without you producing the actual words of mine and explaining what you think those specific words mean or imply.

The part that you inevitably forget is that we are not alone on the road, and that it takes two to tango... and if one of the partners out there on the road is not "dancing," but is just being a bully for some reason (perhaps out of their simple belief that bikes belong on sidewalks) they might not care at all for your "just move left a bit more."
What makes you think I forget about the fact that we're not alone (I write about interaction constantly). What makes you think I forget about the possibility that someone might just not tolerate our being there? (hint: You're wrong; I don't ever rule out that possibility, but I also never assume it to be true because doing so, and acting accordingly, just invites the aggressive behavior).

While you couch your words in "...suggests in and of itself that I recognize there may very well be nothing..." You have never been ready to admit that perhaps we do need to tell the driving public that they have a responsibilty to share the road... that it is not just a "suggestion" to them, but a responsibility.
Sorry, but I don't believe telling the aholes that they're supposed to care is going to get them to care. And I hate to leave the impression that it is necessary for us to convey that to them through PSAs and the like for it be safe out there. It isn't. It already is safe out there, even with the aholes.

Train cyclists all you want... clearly some need it. But don't forget the driving public might need a reminder or two also... and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... not a subtle message that only the hyper aware can detect. (as if a harried motorist can tell if you are pedaling or not... sheesh) :rolleyes:
Whatever. I'm not opposed to PSAs or whatever. I just think it derails us from the main message we should be getting out: the cyclist himself holds most of the cards that determine how safe it is for him to ride in traffic.

[noisebeam]

But in at least some of the cases where Al was passed closely, it seemed like he was riding along a straight trajectory without any lateral adjustments, near the right tire track, perhaps a bit left of it.
Well in some cases you got it wrong. For example in the dual close pass in NOL incident I did make lateral changes and did use the slow signal. I only moved from center position to right after the motorist decided to accelerate toward me. I then move back to center and the 2nd driver also close passes.

See my original post about it:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2390489&postcount=1

We 'discussed/argued' about it then in that thread and you were wrong then too. No need to rehash it, just re-read the thread.

edit: I am going to edit my posts in that thread to replace the no longer working links to the orignal videos and replace those links with the youtube links to the same videos - no other edits will be made.

Al

[SSP]

blah-blah-blah-blah

Sigh, yet another HHWoW (Helmet Head Wall of Words (TM)).

Please do look up the definitions of: "ad infinitum", and "ad nauseum".

Believe it or not, HH, the concepts we're discussing here are not as complicated as nuclear diplomacy, or the nature of String Theory. You can make your points with a lot fewer words...if you would but try.

FWIW, this is one of the reasons why many of us give you so little respect.

[Helmet Head]

FWIW, this is one of the reasons why many of us give you so little respect.
Whatever the reasons you use to justify it for yourself, it's in violation of the forum guidelines.

[sbhikes]

What the Forester apostles don't seem to get is that other users of the road don't have to Monday morning quarterback themselves to death over inches or facial tics. They just blindly roll along without a care in the world to whether or not they are plowing through the right of way of another legitimate yet smaller road user.

These other users of the road also feel justified in purposefully putting the lives of slower and smaller road users at risk by doing things on purpose to "teach lessons", things they would never do to larger and slower road users. And they often justify their mistakes as lessons the cyclists should learn.

They also feel perfectly comfortable driving around with complete ignorance of the rights and responsibilities of smaller and slower road users, and can even pass driving tests and get out of tickets or murder charges without ever having that comfortable ignorance challenged by the law. Again, killing or maiming another human being who happens to be operating a smaller and slower vehicle on the road is justified as just another lesson to teach them.

At some point the inches and the wiggles are meaningless if the other people aren't even aware of the rules. You can second guess all you like, but ignorance on the part of the drivers is often the root cause of the problems we face.

[noisebeam]

A safety aware and responsible motor vehicle driver will analyse a close call after the fact. Think about what they did and what they could have done better to avoid the problem in the future. I've done this and others do too, whether conciously or not. Of course driving a motor vehicle is less so about facial expression and more about positioning, signalling, speed, and situational awareness. (which are all for cycling too of course)

Who is this they you speak of? All motor vehicle drivers, some, a small fraction? Yes there are jerks out there, but don't loose sight of all the considerate folks too.

Inches and wiggles are not about the rules, they are about communication.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Well in some cases you got it wrong. For example in the dual close pass in NOL incident I did make lateral changes and did use the slow signal. I only moved from center position to right after the motorist decided to accelerate toward me. I then move back to center and the 2nd driver also close passes.

See my original post about it:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2390489&postcount=1

We 'discussed/argued' about it then in that thread and you were wrong then too. No need to rehash it, just re-read the thread.

edit: I am going to edit my posts in that thread to replace the no longer working links to the orignal videos and replace those links with the youtube links to the same videos - no other edits will be made.

Al

I just reviewed the video several times, Al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B1MwLwPmGU

At the red light stop you're in the center (marked by darkest grease-colored pavement) or left of center. As you start moving on green, you move right of center, and never move back to center, much less left of center or anywhere near the left tire track. That's consistent with the impression I got from looking at just the stills in the original thread, and what I wrote about that back then.

You cross the crosswalk stripe on the far side of the intersection at about :17. From that point you maintain a fixed lateral position right of center for about 17 seconds, until you adjust for the black SUV by moving even further right at about :34.

You also admitted to never looking back at the driver, except for a brief glance in which you only saw the grill. In the video and in your narrative in the original thread (which I just reread) there is no indication or even claim from you that you tried to do anything to mitigate the situation (like look back, use the slow/stop signal, move left, wave, smile, etc.) as the SUV was approaching, prior to the point where he was tailgating so close that all you could see when you looked back was the grill.

Are you contending I got any of that wrong? If so, what?

By the way 17 seconds is a long time, much longer than the 2 seconds you claimed you had to try something in the original thread. And if the SUV was the vehicle stopped behind you at the light, then you had almost 30 seconds, since it's good habit to look back and smile or nod to whoever stops behind you at a light, just to humanize yourself in their minds. If they maintain a safe speed and following distance after that, great. If they're encroaching, you try some of the other stuff. I'm not guaranteeing it would work, I'm just saying it does not appear that you tried it, and it might have helped. From the original narrative ("But what you can't see is that there is a black Suburban right on my wheel, inches off. All I can see in my rear view is its grille. I give the slow sign (left arm down, elbow bent palm facing rear)"), it appears that you did not even notice them, much less acknowledge them, until they were right behind you.

[SSP]

I just reviewed the video several times, Al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B1MwLwPmGU

It looks to me like noisebeam was properly positioned in the roadway, and the close pass was simply the result of an encounter with a couple of impatient *ssholes.

I typically yell and/or throw the finger in those scenarios.

Fortunately, he was riding far enough left to have room to his right to dodge into when the SUV came too close.

All that said, I would try to find a different road on which to commute if it were me. With heavy traffic, no shoulder/BL, and higher speeds, that road was definitely not bike friendly.

[noisebeam]

I just reviewed the video several times, Al.

Thats great, I re-looked at it to a few time and you know what, even though it was me I don't remember nor can I tell exactly everything I did nor everything else that was going on that can not be seen in the video.
I did move right after crossing the intitial intersection, why, because I was swerving to avoid a manhole cover.
I did give the slow signal to the driver after looking back and seeing the grille. I know I looked back several times.
I didn't not look back sooner as I was accelerating out of the light and may have been watching/focused on other stuff.
yeah, you bet I moved right at :34 because the SUV driver startd to accelerate hard toward me. They got the desired effect, they were wanting to hit me, but I didn't want to gamble on a miscalculation on their part.
Also note I did not stop at light in a way that would let me look back and communicate with rear appraoching vehicle. Light turned green and traffic started rollig again before I was stopped.
I don't ride too far left on this road to give some breathing room for drivers in the inside lane, who may or may not cut tight into outside lane.

Al

[noisebeam]

road was definitely not bike friendly.
But unfortunately it is the only road leading to my house due to neighborhood being bounded by freeways on two sides.
Al

[Helmet Head]

It looks to me like noisebeam was properly positioned in the roadway, and the close pass was simply the result of an encounter with a couple of impatient *ssholes.
...
Fortunately, he was riding far enough left to have room to his right to dodge into when the SUV came too close.

I agree with those two assessments. But that doesn't mean necessarily that there was nothing else he could have done for the 30+ seconds prior to the close pass to possibly have helped the situation, and it doesn't mean he has to get all defensive when suggestions of what some of those things might be are made.


Thats great, I re-looked at it to a few time and you know what, even though it was me I don't remember nor can I tell exactly everything I did nor everything else that was going on that can not be seen in the video.
I did move right after crossing the intitial intersection, why, because I was swerving to avoid a manhole cover.
I did give the slow signal to the driver after looking back and seeing the grille. I know I looked back several times.
I didn't not look back sooner as I was accelerating out of the light and may have been watching/focused on other stuff.
yeah, you bet I moved right at :34 because the SUV driver startd to accelerate hard toward me. They got the desired effect, they were wanting to hit me, but I didn't want to gamble on a miscalculation on their part.
Also note I did not stop at light in a way that would let me look back and communicate with rear appraoching vehicle. Light turned green and traffic started rollig again before I was stopped.
I don't ride too far left on this road to give some breathing room for drivers in the inside lane, who may or may not cut tight into outside lane.

Al
You're slowing from the start of the clip. Your brakes squeek to an almost-stop at 7 seconds. Looks like you're doing a track stand, but the car in front of you does not start moving for 3 more seconds (:10). That's plenty long enough to take a quick look back behind you over your shoulder just to say "hi". I suggest it's a good habit to develop.

By the way, are you still contending I got something wrong? If so, what is it?

[noisebeam]

IBy the way, are you still contending I got something wrong? If so, what is it?
Your simply wrong to assume that something could have been done to prevent the close pass or the initial honk. More perhaps could have been done, but there is no certainty that it would have been prevented. As galen said in the original thread to paraphrase ~"the driver would have closed passed no matter where you were"

And if I had done more and the honk and/or close pass did occur you would still say more could be done or what was done was not done perfectly.

Anyway, the reason I know you are wrong, is because I am too and I am wrong because I don't recall all the specifics with enough clarity to be right and neither can you.

Anyway, why after looking back at motorist, giving slow signal, did they still honk and close pass?

Al

[SSP]

I agree with those two assessments. But that doesn't mean necessarily that there was nothing else he could have done for the 30+ seconds prior to the close pass to possibly have helped the situation, and it doesn't mean he has to get all defensive when suggestions of what some of those things might be are made.

Sure...Al could have brandished a 9mm pistol at the guy, or popped off a couple of smoke grenades. :rolleyes:

Once again, you're Monday Morning Quarterbacking someone else's issue and implying that the cyclist "could have" and/or "should have" done X, Y, and Z....when in reality it was a simple encounter with an impatient *sshole. It's highly doubtful that a "friendly wave", or a "steely gaze", or anything would have mollified the driver, who chose to ignore proper assertive lane positioning, and a firm hand signal.

[noisebeam]

Iand it doesn't mean he has to get all defensive when suggestions of what some of those things might be are made.
Maybe I'm defensive cause there is nothing new here. I am aware of all these things and was aware of them at the time. For whatever reasons, some of which I can not recall, there were other reasons for not doing them or I did do them but don't remember.

I've done these things many a time with excellent result. Knowing if a close pass or honk is prevented is not possible, but getting motorist to back off is possible to see.

Al