Advocacy & Safety - Agree or Disagree? (1 of 2)

Consider this statement:


As a motorist approaches from behind a cyclist riding relatively slowly up ahead in space adjacent to, but not in, the motorist's intended line of travel, the motorist should take notice of the cyclist, slow down some, and possibly adjust left prior to overtaking the cyclist.

Do you:

a) Agree.
b) Agree, unless cyclist is traveling in space separated from motorist's line of travel by a bike lane stripe or shoulder stripe, in which case adjustment in speed or lateral position is often not required.
c) Generally agree, except ... (specify in post)
d) Disagree - motorist should not have to slow down and/or adjust laterally prior to overtaking an out-of-the-way cyclist traveling in adjacent space, regardless of whether there is a separating stripe or not.
e) Disagree - for reason(s) specified in post.

a is what should happen, but as a cyclist one can never rely on it happening regardless of striping or not.

Al

a)

Motorist should slow and move left to increase their reaction time and space should cyclist swerve or fall. This action would also reduce any slipstream buffeting of the cyclist (especially trucks). If the cyclist was at the far side of a 10' wide shoulder it would not be necessary. Personally, my rule-of-thumb overtaking speed differential is 25 - 30 MPH regardless of the speed limit of the road.

It's the same with pedestrians standing at the corner waiting for a light to change to cross the street. I always slow and move left in the curb lane. You never know when a little kid or old person will trip or inadvertently step off the curb. When driving give yourself time and space to stop or avoid a mishap.

a) is what should happen.

b) and d) are what does happen if the cyclist is not directly in the motor vehicle's line of travel, and particularly if the cyclist's line of travel is separated from the motor vehicle's line of travel by a painted line. This is how bike lanes and paved shoulders lead to closer and higher speed passing than the cyclist being in the motor vehicle travel lane, resulting in bike lanes and paved shoulders being less safe.

I would prefer A and that is how I drive, and treat cyclists.

But there is really no reason for a motorist to slow down if the cyclist is predictable and not in the line of travel. So D is correct.

B makes it clear to the motorist that the cyclist is out of the line of travel.

A is what I do and what would be the optimum, but D is what actually happens sometimes.

Do you have a choice for: I got bored reading the all too verbose question and gave up.

Think succinct.

... but D is what actually happens sometimes.
D is what always happens on a high speed road, unless the driver is unable to pass at full speed due to traffic density. It is immaterial what HH and his comrades think should happen.

If I wanted to dream about what "should" happen, each driver would shower me with flowers, candy and chocolates as I pass by. Dreaming doesn't trump reality.

If I wanted to dream about what "should" happen, each driver would shower me with flowers, candy and chocolates as I pass by. Dreaming doesn't trump reality.

I dunno, I figured you out to be a beer and sausage guy. ;)

I answered B, as that I how I generally drive in the presence of cyclists. Often, where they are in a suitable "adjacent facility" there is usually little need to adjust road position or speed. Of course, some anticipation is worthwhile here, as the rider may be preparing to move out to make a turn etc, esp if we are on the approach to an intersection. Always better to be ready for the unexpected!!

I believe most of this (should) come down to common sense road use, but common sense has been on back order for a while now ;)

Ed

I disagree with this poll in general.

mmmmm, hot dogs

D is what always happens on a high speed road, unless the driver is unable to pass at full speed due to traffic density. It is immaterial what HH and his comrades think should happen.

If I wanted to dream about what "should" happen, each driver would shower me with flowers, candy and chocolates as I pass by. Dreaming doesn't trump reality.

I tend to agree... but damn, I was really hoping for flowers, candy and chocolates.

The funny thing is that a pass such as "D" is exactly what motorists do to other motorists... so this matches the Foresterite mindset... they are treating us just like "drivers of vehicles."

D is what always happens on a high speed road, unless the driver is unable to pass at full speed due to traffic density. It is immaterial what HH and his comrades think should happen.

If I wanted to dream about what "should" happen, each driver would shower me with flowers, candy and chocolates as I pass by. Dreaming doesn't trump reality.
Haven't ridden around here lately, have you?
a) is what happens a majority of the time when the cyclist is on a paved shoulder. However, on the paved shoulder is when the frequency of a) lessens, it's still a majority of passing motorists.

But maybe you're right. Maybe 55-60 mph speed limits aren't what you define as high speed roads.

The funny thing is that a pass such as "D" is exactly what motorists do to other motorists... so this matches the Foresterite mindset... they are treating us just like "drivers of vehicles."
Have you ever seen how motorists treat each other when passing on a newly repaved multi-lane road on which stripes are not painted yet?

It should really be required that drivers move over as much as possible, and slow down enough to make passing safe when there isn't enough room to move over. The amount of space needed to pass is directly proportional to the speed, so if you can't move over much just slow down. If the car is going 5mph and I'm going 3 mph, I don't mind if my elbow brushes the mirror.

It should really be required that drivers move over as much as possible, and slow down enough to make passing safe when there isn't enough room to move over. The amount of space needed to pass is directly proportional to the speed, so if you can't move over much just slow down. If the car is going 5mph and I'm going 3 mph, I don't mind if my elbow brushes the mirror.

Sure a requirement... like a law or something...

Bottom line is the air whoosh off of a close passing car can knock a cyclist down... but motorists fail to realize that.

Have you ever seen how motorists treat each other when passing on a newly repaved multi-lane road on which stripes are not painted yet?

Sure, they are afraid to scratch their multi thousand dollar toy...

Too bad they may not feel the same way about "lycra clad clowns on bikes that always run stop signs."

There are many roads on which it isn't necessary to slow down or move for a cyclist. Generalities lead to accidents.

On 4-lane or larger roads, I would prefer cars not slow down, but just change lanes. I don't slow down for cars in my way when I drive if I can simply move, either.

I dunno, I figured you out to be a beer and sausage guy. ;)
You are correct, I was having crossed signals from 2003 Rumsfield/Cheney dreams.

1 of 2?

Why does my spider sense tell me that HH is setting us up with our answers on this poll for his question on the second poll?

1 of 2?

Why does my spider sense tell me that HH is setting us up with our answers on this poll for his question on the second poll?
Well, duh. Do I have to spell it out?

Actually, the discussion seems to be raising most of the issues anyway, perhaps 2 of 2 is not even needed. Still, we'll let this one run its course a few days first.

1 of 2?

Why does my spider sense tell me that HH is setting us up with our answers on this poll for his question on the second poll?

I know. waiting for the other shoe to drop...

Haven't ridden around here lately, have you?
a) is what happens a majority of the time when the cyclist is on a paved shoulder.
Paved shoulder? What's that?

Why take a poll on what should happen?

Why not take a poll on what really happens?

This is a simple setup for powerweaving propoganda. By answering A, he's going to say that you believe moving left is a guarantee that you'll never get hit.

Just a stupid, silly setup.

Why take a poll on what should happen?
Why not take the poll and find out?

If we can agree on what we think should happen, or what we would like to happen, perhaps we can later move on to figuring out how best to get there?


Why not take a poll on what really happens?
Why not indeed. Well, that would be a different poll. It's a free world...


This is a simple setup for powerweaving propoganda. By answering A, he's going to say that you believe moving left is a guarantee that you'll never get hit.
I've never said moving left is a guarantee that you'll never get hit, and hereby certify that I will never say that anyone shows that he believes that simply by answering A.


Just a stupid, silly setup.
Just a stupid, silly post. If you have something of substance to add here, please do. Otherwise, perhaps you can find something of value to say in some other thread and/or forum? :rolleyes:

Why take a poll on what should happen?

Why not take a poll on what really happens?

This is a simple setup for powerweaving propoganda. By answering A, he's going to say that you believe moving left is a guarantee that you'll never get hit.

Just a stupid, silly setup.
Of course it is. Perfect for anyone who takes this pollster's "polls" seriously.

Why not take the poll and find out?


Why not indeed. Well, that would be a different poll. It's a free world...


I've never said moving left is a guarantee that you'll never get hit, and hereby certify that I will never say that anyone shows that he believes that simply by answering A.


Just a stupid, silly post. If you have something of substance to add here, please do. Otherwise, perhaps you can find something of value to say in some other thread and/or forum? :rolleyes:

Come join us in Foo SingingSabre, at least in there we all KNOW we are full of crap

Consider the facts:

1)Most new cars have rack-and-pinion steering. Rack & pinion steering is far better than the old "recirculating ball" steering, which allowed side-to-side play between the front wheels and the steering wheel.

example a. I tried to tell the driver "your car doesn't have any balls.... (that's the only part he heard, he zoomed off)....in the power steering box!" The next Saturday, his hands were dirty, but he had a new four-barrel carburator.He thinks his car has balls now. Sunday morning he was DEAD, the car was wrapped around the trunk of a sycamore tree.

example b. Oldsmobile is defunct.

2) Drafting has more effect than most drivers realize. The aerodynamic wake created by my bike lessens resistance on the right (starboard) side of the following car, which will cause the car to veer right. (Path of least resistance.)

3) So-called "motorway" is a horse drawn carriage path. I can proove it: The "crown" of a road is the highest point in cross section usually in the center. Modern roads have a crown of three or four inches, which is enough for water to roll off into the gutters during heavy rain. The crown of this particular road is eighteen inches, more than enough to encourage rain towards the gutters. Do you know why? Because it's intended for horse-s_ _ _ to roll into the gutters. It's a carriage path, not a motorway. A carriage path cannot be made into a motorway by a simple declarartion of title in the county seat. It takes bulldozers and tons of concrete.
The effect of high crowned roads is that the car will drift to the right due to the force of gravity.

This is a stupid poll.


As a motorist approaches from behind a cyclist riding relatively slowly up ahead in space adjacent to, but not in, the motorist's intended line of travel, the motorist should
1. take notice of the cyclist,
2. slow down some,
3. and possibly adjust left prior to overtaking the cyclist.


My answers:
1. Taking notice of the cyclist when passing is not necessary unless the cyclist and driver may be in a potential collision when they meet. But you said that the cyclist wasn't in the path of the driver so taking any special notice isn't necessary.

2. Slowing down is not necessary. Who slows down when they pass someone in the next lane over? You slow down for dogs and children because you can't predict what they will do, but for regular adult cyclists you don't slow down anymore than you would if they were driving a car in the next lane over.

3. Adjusting left to pass a cyclist is not necessary unless there is insufficient space to pass safely. Only then would you take notice and adjust left to pass. You'd only slow down if the space between you was too close for comfort.

Basically, none of these three things are necessary if you are riding on roads with good bicycle accommodations.

If you are riding your bike on a narrow, high-speed road of the urban unfettered car-centric road design type then, as well all know, none of these 3 things would be done and you'd likely get buzzed on purpose, experience a few horn honks, receive a few single-finger salutes, maybe hear a few "get on the sidewalks" and possibly even get something thrown at you.

If I wanted to dream about what "should" happen, each driver would shower me with flowers, candy and chocolates as I pass by.
I've got a chocolate craving tonight, so I chose A. :D :p

By answering A, he's going to say that you believe moving left is a guarantee that you'll never get hit.
Oh. I thought if I chose A, I'd get ILTB to send me some chocolate. Rats. ;)

Is this when I'm in any lane of a four lane one way street, or the right hand lane of a four lane road?

Should the driver slow down if I'm in a different lane?

is that the question?

I don't know, i think that's going to be up to the driver.

who made you the teacher and test giver around here, mr head?

you looking to start a little business of anti-bicycling propaganda once John Forester gets too senile to collect speaker's honorariums from the American Dream Coalition?

www.americandreamcoalition.org

I'm wondering why the driver has to slow down if i'm in a different lane? could be any kind of lane, i guess. does the driver have to slow down if i'm in a different lane?

i often see cars passing me in other lanes. no big. when its a wide outside lane, probably want some extra caution from the driver. and its impossible to control a wide lane with any consistency. cars will just pass either side. when i ride on the left side of a wide lane, the drivers pass on the right. i hope with more caution.

should the drivers have to slow the cars when i'm in a different lane (could be a bike lane i guess) than the driver? I don't know. probably have to ask some drivers. Mr. Head, you drive a lot instead of bike, what do you think?

Oh. I thought if I chose A, I'd get ILTB to send me some chocolate.
Bingo! But don't tell the OP.

Concur that the post is too verbose and poses a question akin to observing whether an ant should enter the "hill" from the right or the left. The motorist should do whatever he/she does that doesn't pose an undue risk to the cyclist. Neither will be affected by the outcome of this useless poll. Have you too much time on your hands?

This is really pointless and a waste of bandwidth.

Caruso

I disagree, because the sky may be blue.

I disagree, because the sky may be blue.
It should be; except when it isn't.

This is a stupid poll.


My answers:
1. Taking notice of the cyclist when passing is not necessary


Well... I'd still like to be at least be noticed...

D is what always happens on a high speed road, unless the driver is unable to pass at full speed due to traffic density. It is immaterial what HH and his comrades think should happen.

If I wanted to dream about what "should" happen, each driver would shower me with flowers, candy and chocolates as I pass by. Dreaming doesn't trump reality.

Really, where's your statistical proof that D is what always happens as you put it? Show us stats. on this. Is it only for your are in Burlington, or only in Iowa, or everywhere?

It should be; except when it isn't.

No it is.

disagree but only because this is the first poll.

Well... I'd still like to be at least be noticed...

You're so vain. :p

Drive a red ferarri if you want to be noticed.

Drive a red ferarri if you want to be noticed.

Well golly, I do indeed have a fast red Italian bike... isn't that good enough?

It depends on how "adjacent" the motorists' line of travel is to the cyclist's. It if is a few feet or less, then A. If it is more than five or six feet, then, D. It would also depend on conditions. More space should be given in rainy or icy conditions, less in ideal conditions.

Bottom line is the air whoosh off of a close passing car can knock a cyclist down... but motorists fail to realize that.

Do you feel that's the case?

I disagree. Meeting a large car, or even worse, a truck or bus, creates that blast of air that could affect a bicyclist. But from behind, I've never felt more than a gentle "breeze", even when I've been passed by large semis on 55 mph highways. Before I first experienced it, I was afraid that I would be knocked over, but in the end, I found it simply wasn't a factor.

The slipstream of large trucks is overrated. Sure it's noticeable, but on a 60 mph speed limit highway at three feet, if the bike gets bobbled it's because of the cyclist, not the truck.

Drive a red ferarri if you want to be noticed.
Or dress to be noticed.