Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Has learning VC made cycling in traffic safer for you?

Didn't you end up in the hospital by swerving in front of a passing vehicle without looking back first, or did I not understand what you wrote?
No, that's not what happened at all. I described it in detail a number of years ago, I was signaling a left turn from a bike lane, looking back. From what I've been able to put together, a car from a parking lot on my right decided to swerve in front of me, and I ended up returning to consciousness about 40 minutes later.

By the evidence of my injuries, I tried to brake with my left hand (right hand remained on the top bar), spraining my thumb in the process (probably as the bike went over). I landed on my head, with the bike up in the air, next hit on my right shoulder, then my right hip (severe contusion with the skin being severed underneith from the underlying tissue--it took two years to regain feeling on that part of my hip and I needed a number of trips to the hospital to remove fluid from the underlying area). The bike came down last, and other than a scraped front fender and torn handlebar tape on the right side (I had bar-end shifters, which were not damaged), the bike was okay.

My speculation is that my front tire touched the vehicle's rear tire, it rotating down and the vehicle's tire rotating up, in such a manner that it threw the bike into the air, and I came down on my head, shattering my helmet in the process (a dozen pieces), and bouncing my head so that I got a secondary cut on my head from the second hit (three staples--which induced dizziness when I touched the center one--go figure!).

Had I been using a mirror, I could have monitored both in front of me and behind for oncoming traffic. I did not swerve in front of another car, and so far as I know, never initiated the turn out of the bike lane that I was trying to move away from for a left turn at the bottam of the hill (two hundred yards or so away when I began my turn sequence. With the mirror, I would simply have slowed down, yielded to the car, and gone to the bottom of the hill in the bike lane. From there I would have used the signal to cross as an alternative.

When I asked John Forester about the mirror, he said my mistake was not getting into the far left lane way up the road. But to do that, I would be riding for about half a mile in the far left lane. That is why I stated above that, using VC techniques of clearing myself by looking back (not using a mirror) for an extended time (I was still in the bike lane, and could stay there if I wanted--I can go in a straight line, you know), I set myself up for being hit by a car coming from my right (blind-sided, as they say).

By the way, my trauma doc said, on a subsequent visit to remove fluid from my hip, that "If you had not been wearing a helmet, and had been unlucky that day, you would have lived."

John

No, that's not what happened at all. I described it in detail a number of years ago, I was signaling a left turn from a bike lane, looking back. From what I've been able to put together, a car from a parking lot on my right decided to swerve in front of me, and I ended up returning to consciousness about 40 minutes later.
So as you were approaching an intersection with a parking lot driveway, while riding in the bike lane stripe-demarcated margin (off to the side from where drivers are more likely to look for traffic), you were looking backwards? I'm sorry, but...


Had I been using a mirror, I could have monitored both in front of me and behind for oncoming traffic. I did not swerve in front of another car, and so far as I know, never initiated the turn out of the bike lane that I was trying to move away from for a left turn at the bottam of the hill (two hundred yards or so away when I began my turn sequence. With the mirror, I would simply have slowed down, yielded to the car, and gone to the bottom of the hill in the bike lane. From there I would have used the signal to cross as an alternative. I dunno. It sounds to me like you waited too long to plan your merge left. Maybe if you had a mirror and you weren't looking back, you would have noticed the guy coming out of the parking lot sooner. Maybe not.

While a mirror makes it easier to monitor to the rear quickly, not having one is not an excuse for looking back for too long at the wrong time.


When I asked John Forester about the mirror, he said my mistake was not getting into the far left lane way up the road. But to do that, I would be riding for about half a mile in the far left lane. I don't understand. Aren't there about 2500 feet between a half a mile back from where you were to where you were? Wouldn't a better place to begin your merge left have been somewhere between those two points?


That is why I stated above that, using VC techniques of clearing myself by looking back (not using a mirror) for an extended time (I was still in the bike lane, and could stay there if I wanted--I can go in a straight line, you know), I set myself up for being hit by a car coming from my right (blind-sided, as they say). Dude, you were looking backwards "for an extended time" while moving forward in the relatively obscure margin of the road as you were approaching an intersection! What would Homer Simpson say? :eek:


By the way, my trauma doc said, on a subsequent visit to remove fluid from my hip, that "If you had not been wearing a helmet, and had been unlucky that day, you would have lived." So, you're dead? ;) I think he must have said "you would have NOT lived", or "you would have died".

I, for one, am really glad you're still here to tell us about it.

I wish I could help you out on how long I was looking back. I said that I was looking back...and that was my last memory of the event. By the way, it was Forester who said to take a good look back.

I know nothing from memory of what happened in the seconds before the accident, and that apparently is pretty common for concussion injuries. I do know that I reacted, so I must have noticed someone. Beyond that, as I have no memory of it, I cannot say. Everything else is a reconstruction from the evidence.

There were three witnesses who talked to police, but there was no police report. Two witnesses said I lost control of the bike, and one said a car pulled out in front of me. My feeling is that the two witnesses saying I lost control were from that car that pulled out in front of me.

What the doc said was an accurate quote. I would have been unlucky to have lived that day if I had not been wearing a helmet, because of the brain damage that would have occurred. That was his message.


I, for one, am really glad you're still here to tell us about it.
Thank you, I appreciate that.

John

I wish I could help you out on how long I was looking back. I said that I was looking back...and that was my last memory of the event. By the way, it was Forester who said to take a good look back.

I know nothing from memory of what happened in the seconds before the accident, and that apparently is pretty common for concussion injuries. I do know that I reacted, so I must have noticed someone. Beyond that, as I have no memory of it, I cannot say. Everything else is a reconstruction from the evidence.

There were three witnesses who talked to police, but there was no police report. Two witnesses said I lost control of the bike, and one said a car pulled out in front of me. My feeling is that the two witnesses saying I lost control were from that car that pulled out in front of me.

What the doc said was an accurate quote. I would have been unlucky to have lived that day if I had not been wearing a helmet, because of the brain damage that would have occurred. That was his message.


Thank you, I appreciate that.

John I was thinking about this on the way home. Something else doesn't make sense.

You're looking back in order to prepare for a merge left to ultimately make a left turn, correct?

So, you're waiting for a gap? Well, wasn't the gap there? I mean, if you were hit by a car pulling out from your right, then there must have been a gap for them to pull out into. See what I mean? It's similar to the Wilberding case in that respect - where the fact that the car he hit was able to turn left across his path indicated there must have been some kind of gap in traffic moving his direction at that time (raising the question... why was he still in the bike lane in the "right turn zone" of the road?).

So, in your case, if there was a gap for this car to pull out, what was keeping you in the bike lane?

I know you can't remember, but this is what I'm wondering about. Was there more than one lane in your direction here? If so, is it possible that you were waiting for gap in all lanes, so that you could cut across from the bike lane to the left turn lane in one move? Probably one of the most advanced vehicular cycling skills is the practice of merging across a multi-lane road with busy/fast traffic one lane at a time, negotiating for and controlling each lane sequentially, as you move your way across. Most cyclists avoid doing this, and prefer to wait for a multi-lane gap, and shoot straight across in one move. If that's what you were trying to do, that would explain why you would not have merged out of the bike lane yet, despite there being a gap in the adjacent lane.

blech.

i've learned there's a lot of ways to ride outside of the limitations of the 'vc' box.

specifically, splitting lanes, adaptive cycling, using non-legal methods of riding for expediency, traffic jamming, etc.

There were three lanes here, and I was going for the middle lane (to end up on the outside of the left-hand turn). I was also coming down a hill, with a moderate right turn to the road system. If you want to see the intersection, type in "NW Evergreen Pkwy and Cornell Road, Hillsboro, Oregon" into Google Maps. You can zoom right into the intersection.

I now avoid that whole area using a bike lane behind the Tannesbourne complex. You can also see that on Google Maps by going north until you can see Sunset Hwy. You'll see a tree line just south of that, and a ribbon of asphalt. That is a bike path around the whole complex. You can follow that around the parking lots to the west, and see it merge into a parking lot for a large building (a furnature store). I then ride that parking lot out to NW Corridor Ct., to NW 173 Ave. and up to Cornell Road. I use the crosswalk at Cornell Road.

John

So as you were approaching an intersection with a parking lot driveway, while riding in the bike lane stripe-demarcated margin (off to the side from where drivers are more likely to look for traffic), you were looking backwards? I'm sorry, but...
...but what? Looking back is a standard technique used before merging into another lane. Also, your contention that Mr. Ratliff was "off to the side from where drivers are more likely to look for traffic" is problematic, since Mr. Ratliff was using the legally designated bike lane, where drivers are held responsible to look for bicycle traffic. The idea that "drivers are more likely to look for [bicycle] traffic" outside the bike lane is not an issue, since the burden of safe entry or crossing of lanes is upon the vehicle operator with entering the street from the driveway. Since a bike lane is a legally designated lane for cyclists, arguing that drivers are more likely to look elsewhere for cyclists does not make sense.

But cycling defensively is always a good idea, and leaving a bike lane that poses any hazard to a cyclist should always be an option.

No, the driver was at fault. Every crash is not the cyclist's fault.

Somehow, I can't help notice the similarity between getting hit by a car on a bicycle and being raped. When it happens, there's this strange tendency for some to think the victim must have done something to deserve it.

There were three lanes here, and I was going for the middle lane (to end up on the outside of the left-hand turn). I was also coming down a hill, with a moderate right turn to the road system. If you want to see the intersection, type in "NW Evergreen Pkwy and Cornell Road, Hillsboro, Oregon" into Google Maps. You can zoom right into the intersection.

I now avoid that whole area using a bike lane behind the Tannesbourne complex. You can also see that on Google Maps by going north until you can see Sunset Hwy. You'll see a tree line just south of that, and a ribbon of asphalt. That is a bike path around the whole complex. You can follow that around the parking lots to the west, and see it merge into a parking lot for a large building (a furnature store). I then ride that parking lot out to NW Corridor Ct., to NW 173 Ave. and up to Cornell Road. I use the crosswalk at Cornell Road.

John
Back when I was a fearless teenager in metro Detroit, I would have ridden that road, John. Now, I'll take the MUP with you. Happily.

...but what? Looking back is a standard technique used before merging into another lane. Also, your contention that Mr. Ratliff was "off to the side from where drivers are more likely to look for traffic" is problematic, since Mr. Ratliff was using the legally designated bike lane, where drivers are held responsible to look for bicycle traffic. The idea that "drivers are more likely to look for traffic" outside the bike lane is not an issue, since the burden of safe entry or crossing of lanes is upon the vehicle operator with entering the street from the driveway. [B]Since a bike lane is a legally designated lane for cyclists, arguing that drivers are more likely to look elsewhere for cyclists does not make sense.

But cycling defensively is always a good idea, and leaving a bike lane that poses any hazard to a cyclist should always be an option.

No, the driver was at fault. Every crash is not the cyclist's fault.

I think HH's point is that he feels JCR is not taking any responsibility for the fact that he got into this collision. It's true that it was the fault of the motorist for pulling across the bikelane (something I see motorists often do even if they know they can't pull out completely into the lane just to get better sightlines or because they just aren't paying attention to where they stopped). But, JCR was riding in the margins of the road approaching an intersection and not paying adequate attention to what was happening in front of him. Just because he was trying to change lanes does not relinquish him from any responsibility for what is going on in front of him.

To address the bolded section of your post, it is my opinion that motorists in general are not looking anywhere for cyclists. They are looking for traffic in the traffic lanes though, which means that as a cyclist, if you want to be noticed even though motorists aren't trying to spot your presence, a good start is to be where they are looking for other types of traffic.

Somehow, I can't help notice the similarity between getting hit by a car on a bicycle and being raped. When it happens, there's this strange tendency for some to think the victim must have done something to deserve it.

Do you not see any use in discussing what might have been done to mitigate the risk in the situation? Nobody "deserves" any harm but we usually could have done something to help prevent whatever harm occurred to us.

...but what? Looking back is a standard technique used before merging into another lane. It is not standard technique to look back for a period of time without verifying that is safe to stop paying attention to what is in front of you for that period of time. It is not a standard technique to look back while you're entering an intersection where there is a potential conflict that you have not ruled out.


Also, your contention that Mr. Ratliff was "off to the side from where drivers are more likely to look for traffic" is problematic, since Mr. Ratliff was using the legally designated bike lane, where drivers are held responsible to look for bicycle traffic. The idea that "drivers are more likely to look for traffic" outside the bike lane is not an issue, since the burden of safe entry or crossing of lanes is upon the vehicle operator with entering the street from the driveway.
Not an issue? Regardless of what the laws or what the legal burdens are, the [B]practical facts of the matter are that drivers pay most attention to where conflicts are most likely: the vehicular traffic lanes (and that does not include shoulders, gores, bike lanes or any space demarcated such that vehicular travel is inhibited in that space). Cyclists can choose to ignore that fact, or take it into account when they're riding. It's up to them. I recommend they keep it in mind, and ride accordingly.


Since a bike lane is a legally designated lane for cyclists, arguing that drivers are more likely to look elsewhere for cyclists does not make sense. The idea that "legal designation" is some kind of significant factor in determining how likely drivers are to look somewhere is what does not make sense. Not practical sense anyway.


But cycling defensively is always a good idea, and leaving a bike lane that poses any hazard to a cyclist should always be an option.

No, the driver was at fault. Every crash is not the cyclist's fault. I agree the driver was legally, morally and civilly at fault.

That doesn't mean the cyclist did not have the practical means to avoid it, or, more importantly, that we should not take from this example lessons in good and not so good practices. Note that John himself believes there are preventative lessons to be learned here: use a mirror, avoid this kind of street.



Somehow, I can't help notice the similarity between getting hit by a car on a bicycle and being raped. When it happens, there's this strange tendency for some to think the victim must have done something to deserve it. It's not about deserving it, it's about developing skills, habits and practices to reduce the likelihood of it happening in the first place.

Looking at a crash and saying this might have been prevented if the cyclist had done X, and concluding that doing X in similar situations is a good practice for all cyclists to adopt, is similar to looking at a **** and saying this might have been prevented had the victim had a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques, and concluding that developing a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques is a good practice for all potential **** victims.

I think HH's point is that he feels JCR is not taking any responsibility for the fact that he got into this collision. It's true that it was the fault of the motorist for pulling across the bikelane (something I see motorists often do even if they know they can't pull out completely into the lane just to get better sightlines or because they just aren't paying attention to where they stopped). But, JCR was riding in the margins of the road approaching an intersection and not paying adequate attention to what was happening in front of him. Just because he was trying to change lanes does not relinquish him from any responsibility for what is going on in front of him.

To address the bolded section of your post, it is my opinion that motorists in general are not looking anywhere for cyclists. They are looking for traffic in the traffic lanes though, which means that as a cyclist, if you want to be noticed even though motorists aren't trying to spot your presence, a good start is to be where they are looking for other types of traffic.
Well, that is not completely true (that I have not taken responsibility for this crash. I'm an industrial hygienist and safety professional, and as a result of this I have completely reviewed every aspect of my riding. You get to do that when it takes about two months off the bike before you can even get back on (I had on-going dizziness problems for about that length of time.) In that time, my review revealed a number of things, mostly in the ergonomics (man-machine interface) area:

--First, my bicycle was not adequate for what I was doing (commuting to and from work). It was my wife's old Schwinn LeToure, and it was slightly undersized for me. My seat was about three inches above the handlebars, and this did not give me a good way of monitoring the environment. So one of the first things I did was to replace the stem with a much longer one, to get my handlebars two or so inches above seat level. This greatly improved sight lines. This one aspect greatly improved my ability to monitor the environment around me.

--Because of the limitations of an upright bicycle, I began exploring much more intently a new design for a bicycle. I had been looking at recumbant bicycles for some time, but intensified the search. Every week, I needed to go to Legacy Emanual Hospital to get fluid drained from my thigh. After that procedure, I went to the LBS for recumbant bicycles (Coventry Cycleworks in Portland, Oregon), and began test rides (when I was able to ride). I had many trips (about two months worth of draining that thigh injury), and so was able to try many different bikes. It took until later that summer, when I was riding my Trek 1420 upright bike on a bike path, and got the wheel stuck in a groove beween wooden planks and went over the handlebars (slowly, but it happened, and at low speed, no less). After that incident (I got a new wheel from the City of Hillsboro, and the path fixed too), I put money down on a Rans Stratus long-wheelbase recumbant with over the seat steering. I've been riding that bike since most of the time (nearly 6000 miles now, without an inciden with cars, and plenty of incidents prevented by being able to monitor around me much, much better).

--I determined that my two trips to the hospital (yes, there was one other about 2 years prior) happened on Fridays. As I've said on other threads, I view drivers differently from other human beings, as when they get into their cars, they became a different animal. They also behave differently, and on Fridays it seems around here that they act more like sharks in a feeding frenzy than normal human beings. I therefore enacted an administrative control, and decided not to ride on Fridays. I have only ridden on Fridays a few times since (today, for instance, I walked to work; everyone should try it once, at least, to get an idea of just how efficient a bicycle is in moving us around).

--I explored different routes to work, and found a bike path (see above) around this hazardous area of Evergreen Parkway. In doing this, I counted close passes by cars on different routes, and came up with ones with the lowest counts that included bike paths, and a combination of facilities. This included a "Auto Avoidance Route" that used side roads near Evergreen Parkway to get as close to work without being on Evergreen Parkway as possible. This dropped the close counts from the fifties to less than ten on a 3.7 mile commute.

--I looked very closely at bike clothing, and decided to settle on yellow or florescent green for my shirt/jacket, utilized lights for greater visibility of me, and a florescent vest for awhile.


Do you not see any use in discussing what might have been done to mitigate the risk in the situation? Nobody "deserves" any harm but we usually could have done something to help prevent whatever harm occurred to us

This is always important, and it is also important to realize that no accident has a single "cause." The accepted accident causation theories now recognize multiple root causes, some of which involve the rider (cyclist) and some of which involve other aspects (design of bicycles, design of roadways, striping of roadways, time of day, weather factors, interactions with traffic, etc. Only a few of these are really addressed by VC. I took what I feel is a more comprehensive approach, and that is what some of us are getting to with the concepts of Adaptive Cycling.

John

I think HH's point is that he feels JCR is not taking much if any personal responsibility for the fact that he got into this collision. It's true that it was the fault of the motorist for pulling across the bikelane (something I see motorists often do even if they know they can't pull out completely into the lane just to get better sightlines or because they just aren't paying attention to where they stopped). But, JCR was riding in the margins of the road approaching an intersection and not paying adequate attention to what was happening in front of him. Just because he was trying to change lanes does not relinquish him from any practical/personal responsibility for what is going on in front of him.

Yes, that is my point. I added a couple of notations in indigo to clarify my point only, with respect to the responsibility being personal/practical, not legal.


To address the bolded section of your post, it is my opinion that motorists in general are not looking anywhere for cyclists. They are looking for traffic in the traffic lanes though, which means that as a cyclist, if you want to be noticed even though motorists aren't trying to spot your presence, a good start is to be where they are looking for other types of traffic.
Exactly. I can't even think of a clarification to add to this.

:beer:

John, I'm looking at the google map of NW Evergreen Pkwy and Cornell Road, Hillsboro, Oregon.

You were headed northeast on Cornell and planning on turning left onto NW Evergreen?

Or were you headed south on Evergreen planning on turning left onto Cornell?

Where were you when you hit the car that pulled out in front of you? That is, which driveway did that car come out of?

'Just thought I'd say that I decline to vote because there are not enough categories, and those that are there are biased. For instance, there is no category that says "I learned VC techniques, and ended up in the hospital because of it."

John

My usual practice is to ride within 12 inches of the edge of the road (depending on the surface, etc). If there is a white line, I'm on it. When I got hit from behind (which I recall nothing of), had I been 6 inches more to the left ...

I'd be D E A D. http://emoticons4u.com/violent/sterb079.gif


I know I've posted this before, but these polls keep re-appearing, so I'll state my experience again for the record. By all means ride the way you want, but I stay right. I stay away from traffic at almost all cost. Giving up 2 minutes waiting for traffic is better than giving up 2 weeks in the hospital.

Don't play in traffic kiddies, you parents taught you that long ago.

jw

John, I'm looking at the google map of NW Evergreen Pkwy and Cornell Road, Hillsboro, Oregon.

You were headed northeast on Cornell and planning on turning left onto NW Evergreen?

Or were you headed south on Evergreen planning on turning left onto Cornell?

Where were you when you hit the car that pulled out in front of you? That is, which driveway did that car come out of?
I was headed south on Evergreen, to turn to the east on Cornell. What does not show on the aerial view is that this is coming down a pretty good hill toward the intersection. I was above the last parking lot intersection (north of it) as I was signaling. I cannot say much about the car itself, as I have no memory of that part of it. My memory stops about 100 feet above that intersection.

While you are talking about taking responsibility for observing around you, be aware that there are ergonomic principles what show that this is very difficult to do without mirrers. The upright racing bicycle is badly adapted for this kind of monitoring, which is the reason for my comprehensive review of everything about my cycling, including the bicycle itself.

John

there is no category that says "I learned VC techniques, and ended up in the hospital because of it."
Which VC technique do you blame on ending up in the hospital? (and please don't say looking back while entering an intersection).


When I got hit from behind (which I recall nothing of), had I been 6 inches more to the left ...
While we're speculating, what I'm more interesting in is what would have happened had you been at least 4 feet more to the left for the dozens of seconds that motorist who ultimately hit you was approaching you from behind, and you were monitoring the progress and status of that approach every few seconds in a rear-view mirror, possibly adjusting your position, body language and maybe using slow/stop hand signals, which is the way I ride on narrow straight ruralish roads similar to the one depicted in the photos you've posted before.

Do you not see any use in discussing what might have been done to mitigate the risk in the situation? Nobody "deserves" any harm but we usually could have done something to help prevent whatever harm occurred to us.

I'm getting really tired of hearing this horsecrap. Personal responsibility is one thing, but shoulda, woulda, coulda by Monday morning quarterbacks is about as valid concerning cycling as it is for football games. This is the same kind of thinking that says **** victims had it coming due to their own actions or inaction, and it sickens me. Stuff happens, and despite what Mr. Only-seen-the-world-in-books says, most times there was NOT much that could have been done to avoid it. Think butterfly effect.

I was headed south on Evergreen, to turn to the east on Cornell. What does not show on the aerial view is that this is coming down a pretty good hill toward the intersection. I was above the last parking lot intersection (north of it) as I was signaling. I cannot say much about the car itself, as I have no memory of that part of it. My memory stops about 100 feet above that intersection.
So, to be clear, immediately south of the intersection where you got hit, the 3 lanes in your direction become, going left to right, left-only, straight-only, right-only, and then (!) a bike lane?



While you are talking about taking responsibility for observing around you, be aware that there are ergonomic principles what show that this is very difficult to do without mirrers. The upright racing bicycle is badly adapted for this kind of monitoring, which is the reason for my comprehensive review of everything about my cycling, including the bicycle itself.

John
What is an "upright racing bicycle"? What kind of racing bicycle is not "upright"?

I'm getting really tired of hearing this horsecrap. Personal responsibility is one thing, but shoulda, woulda, coulda by Monday morning quarterbacks is about as valid concerning cycling as it is for football games. This is the same kind of thinking that says **** victims had it coming due to their own actions or inaction, and it sickens me. Stuff happens, and despite what Mr. Only-seen-the-world-in-books says, most times there was NOT much that could have been done to avoid it. Think butterfly effect.
Looking at a crash and saying this might have been prevented if the cyclist had done X, and concluding that doing X in similar situations is a good practice for all cyclists to adopt, is similar to looking at a **** and saying this might have been prevented had the victim had a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques, and concluding that developing a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques is a good practice for all potential **** victims.

Do you have a problem with women deciding to take self-defense courses based on "should, would, could" perceptions about the potential of some **** victims possibly being able to avoid the horrors they experienced had they taken self-defense courses? Or do you see these women as blaming the victim too?

Looking at a crash and saying this might have been prevented if the cyclist had done X, and concluding that doing X in similar situations is a good practice for all cyclists to adopt, is similar to looking at a **** and saying this might have been prevented had the victim had a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques, and concluding that developing a good working knowledge of self-defense techniques is a good practice for all potential **** victims.

Do you have a problem with women deciding to take self-defense courses based on "should, would, could" perceptions about the potential of some **** victims possibly being able to avoid the horrors they experienced had they taken self-defense courses? Or do you see these women as blaming the victim too?

Apples and oranges, as usual. :rolleyes: Advocating that one can do what they can to 'prevent' bad things from happening is a good thing. Monday morning quarterbacking after the fact claiming that if they shoulda, woulda, coulda, done something to prevent it is just plain ignorant. It's even more ignorant when the Monday morning quarterback has very little experience outside his own little fishbowl.

You can disect an accident in an attempt to learn lessons concerning what MIGHT have been done to prevent it, but there is no way you can assert with any certainty that ANYTHING WOULD have prevented it - unless you are a diety....are you a God, HH?

I'm getting really tired of hearing this horsecrap.

Having been a member here since september of 2005, you must know that you can put HH, and/or any other members, on your "ignore list." Then, you wouldn't have to "hear" what you consider "horsecrap."


Personal responsibility is one thing, but shoulda, woulda, coulda by Monday morning quarterbacks is about as valid concerning cycling as it is for football games.

As you probably know, people who play and coach those games spend many hours reviewing recordings, precisely for the purpose of doing it better "next time." Review of cycling incidents and situations, by cyclists, does, indeed, seem "about as valid" as that -- which is to say *very* valid.


This is the same kind of thinking that says **** victims had it coming due to their own actions or inaction, and it sickens me.

This is a ridiculous, and deliberately inflammatory, analogy, Chip. Given the evidence provided by many of your other posts, it seems clear that you are bright enough to actually argue the fact and theory relevant to your position. Why do you so often resort to angry mudslinging like this?


...despite what Mr. Only-seen-the-world-in-books says...

How much time, in the year and a half you have been posting here, have you spent inventing derogatory names for HH (and perhaps others)? Do you actually believe that this sort of offensive behavior somehow bolsters your arguments? I assure you that it does not, except, perhaps, with the amen chorus of followers who seem ever-ready to join you in heaping ridicule on those you've designated as your victims.

In short, you're behaving like a bully, Chip. It's not attractive and it's not impressive. I really don't understand why the operators of the forum put up with this nonsense.

You can disect an accident in an attempt to learn lessons concerning what MIGHT have been done to prevent it, but there is no way you can assert with any certainty that ANYTHING WOULD have prevented it ...
I totally agree.

Do you think anyone here is asserting with any certainty that ANYTHING WOULD have prevented it? If so, in what post(s)? If not, what's your point?

So, to be clear, immediately south of the intersection where you got hit, the 3 lanes in your direction become, going left to right, left-only, straight-only, right-only, and then (!) a bike lane?
The second from the left lane is left/straight. The right car lane is right-only, and the bike lane ends at the light.


What is an "upright racing bicycle"? What kind of racing bicycle is not "upright"?
Check out this link:

http://www.recumbents.com/hpra/

I would not want to ride these on the road, but no upright racing bike can touch them.

While we are talking about it, Chipcom has taken offense of your looking at my accident. I don't mind it, as I have made my changes, and they are working. Realize that in this situation, VC as a riding technique is inadequate to complely protect a rider. That is why I felt it necessary to do an "engineering change," and get a recumbant bicycle. This is coming from a person who has spent over 25 years investigating industrial accidents. I'll show you a photo of it later tonight.

John

Okay, I think I've got it. You're going downhill in a bike lane approaching an intersection with a parking lot driveway entrance/exit. Across that intersection the lane that is currently adjacent to your bike lane becomes a right only, and the lane adjacent to it, one more to the left, becomes left or straight. Since you're planning on turning left, that's the lane you want to be in. But, again, there is a whole lane between you and your target lane, so you're looking back, looking for a gap. At this point, moments before the car pulls out in front of you, we know the lane adjacent to you is not occupied, since, if it was occupied, the car that you're about to hit would not be able to pull out in front of you.


Realize that in this situation, VC as a riding technique is inadequate to complely protect a rider. Everything in the world is not adequate to completely protect a rider, so that's not saying anything.

But I don't understand why you think your behavior here is an example of vehicular cycling anyway. If nothing else, before you reached the intersection where you got hit, per VC, you should have already been positioned for your ultimate position, in the lane about to become left-or-straight, not two lanes over in a bike lane that's on the wrong side of a lane that's about to become right only.

I mean, of course we can't say for sure what would have happened had you been following VC practices and merged "properly" (per VC) earlier, but don't you agree you would be at little to no risk of being hit the way you got hit? After all, you would have no reason to be looking backwards as you entered the intersection, and your sight lines to and from the guy who pulled out in front of you would have been longer (giving each of you more time to notice the other), especially considering the slight right-hand curve in the road, and your positioning out in the traffic lane where the driver of that car is likely to have been looking would have made you more cognitively conspicuous to him.

It seems to me that VC as a set of bicycle riding skills and practices would likely have been quite adequate in protecting you in this case, had you been using it.

Well, that is not completely true (that I have not taken responsibility for this crash. I'm an industrial hygienist and safety professional, and as a result of this I have completely reviewed every aspect of my riding. You get to do that when it takes about two months off the bike before you can even get back on (I had on-going dizziness problems for about that length of time.) In that time, my review revealed a number of things, mostly in the ergonomics (man-machine interface) area:

First, I do want to apologize for my quickly typed post in which I stated you took no responsibility. That was an error on my part for not fully rereading what I typed.


--Because of the limitations of an upright bicycle, I began exploring much more intently a new design for a bicycle. I had been looking at recumbant bicycles for some time, but intensified the search. Every week, I needed to go to Legacy Emanual Hospital to get fluid drained from my thigh. After that procedure, I went to the LBS for recumbant bicycles (Coventry Cycleworks in Portland, Oregon), and began test rides (when I was able to ride). I had many trips (about two months worth of draining that thigh injury), and so was able to try many different bikes. It took until later that summer, when I was riding my Trek 1420 upright bike on a bike path, and got the wheel stuck in a groove beween wooden planks and went over the handlebars (slowly, but it happened, and at low speed, no less). After that incident (I got a new wheel from the City of Hillsboro, and the path fixed too), I put money down on a Rans Stratus long-wheelbase recumbant with over the seat steering. I've been riding that bike since most of the time (nearly 6000 miles now, without an inciden with cars, and plenty of incidents prevented by being able to monitor around me much, much better).

If you've answered this before just direct me to the post if you can, but how do you feel about the limitations of the recumbent bicycle, like lower manueverability, lower position to the road (possibly less conspicuous) and lack of being able to turn your body around to communicate with drivers? Having never been on a recumbent I'm asking based on what others have said. Other factors keeping me from considering a recumbent for commuting are problems with getting moving and retaining momentum on hills (a big part of my riding).


--I determined that my two trips to the hospital (yes, there was one other about 2 years prior) happened on Fridays. As I've said on other threads, I view drivers differently from other human beings, as when they get into their cars, they became a different animal. They also behave differently, and on Fridays it seems around here that they act more like sharks in a feeding frenzy than normal human beings. I therefore enacted an administrative control, and decided not to ride on Fridays. I have only ridden on Fridays a few times since (today, for instance, I walked to work; everyone should try it once, at least, to get an idea of just how efficient a bicycle is in moving us around).

I agree that sometimes people seem in a rush on Fridays. But, I also feel like people are in a hurry every morning on the way to work, and often on the way home too, and during holidays, and on the weekends going to the beach/mall/grocery store, etc. For instance, I'm in way too much of a hurry in the morning to ever try walking the 7 miles to work :)


This is always important, and it is also important to realize that no accident has a single "cause." The accepted accident causation theories now recognize multiple root causes, some of which involve the rider (cyclist) and some of which involve other aspects (design of bicycles, design of roadways, striping of roadways, time of day, weather factors, interactions with traffic, etc. Only a few of these are really addressed by VC. I took what I feel is a more comprehensive approach, and that is what some of us are getting to with the concepts of Adaptive Cycling.

John

All of what you cite as problems I feel are easily addressed by changes in the cyclists behavior. I've done a complete turnaround in my own behavior on the roads from how I rode before I started to commute. Prior to that, I never really considered myself a vehicle driver and acted accordingly. Luckily, due to the times I was riding (I didn't often ride near rush hour), I never had any truly close calls or collisions with other drivers. When I started riding almost all of my miles during rush hour and regardless of weather, I realized that I needed an attitude adjustment. I really feel like now the only problems I have on the road are ones that I caused myself by not making the right decisions. These problems are avoided (at the time and in the future) by me correcting my bad behavior and learning from the mistake.

--Because of the limitations of an upright bicycle, I began exploring much more intently a new design for a bicycle. I had been looking at recumbant bicycles for some time, but intensified the search. Every week, I needed to go to Legacy Emanual Hospital to get fluid drained from my thigh. After that procedure, I went to the LBS for recumbant bicycles (Coventry Cycleworks in Portland, Oregon), and began test rides (when I was able to ride). I had many trips (about two months worth of draining that thigh injury), and so was able to try many different bikes. It took until later that summer, when I was riding my Trek 1420 upright bike on a bike path, and got the wheel stuck in a groove beween wooden planks and went over the handlebars (slowly, but it happened, and at low speed, no less). After that incident (I got a new wheel from the City of Hillsboro, and the path fixed too), I put money down on a Rans Stratus long-wheelbase recumbant with over the seat steering. I've been riding that bike since most of the time (nearly 6000 miles now, without an inciden with cars, and plenty of incidents prevented by being able to monitor around me much, much better).
Are you saying that a (properly fitted) upright bicycle has limitations that make it unsuitable for traffic cycling?

What would those be, and how does a 'bent solve them?

John, by the way, for what's worth, Forester's book Effective Cycling goes well beyond VC in terms of addressing bicyclist safety, including dealing with proper bicycle fit, one of the factors you considered to be contributory to your crash.

Realize that in this situation, VC as a riding technique is inadequate to complely protect a rider. That is why I felt it necessary to do an "engineering change," and get a recumbant bicycle. This is coming from a person who has spent over 25 years investigating industrial accidents. I'll show you a photo of it later tonight.

John

Have you been riding it long? What have you learned from riding it? Do you feel more protected or safer somehow?

Looking forward to seeing the pic.

Are you saying that a (properly fitted) upright bicycle has limitations that make it unsuitable for traffic cycling?
All machines have limitations, as well as capabilities. The trick is to make them work for you. The Schwinn LeTour that I still have had, at that time, been fairly well fitted for me. I had the seat height right, the distance away, etc. I have several books (including EC, which Brian now has on loan--he got it for me for my birthday some years ago) on bicycling, and that bike "fit" in the traditional sense. What I did not have was a sense of where that fit should be for traffic. Most people, when they "fit" a bike, fit it as if you are a twenty-something trying to ride in the Tour-de-France. But I was a fifty-something, a bit more bent-over than some (I've carried some gear in my time), and that did not work for me.

The above accident showed me that I needed something different. But my wife was against the recombant design, so I went about improving the LeTour and my Trek 1420. I got both of them new stems, which raised significantly the handlebar height to give me better visibility. With the Schwinn, I can not stand on the pedals, straight up, and hold the top of the handlebar (still a drop handlebar). This has particular advantage when looking over traffic. I can almost do the same with the Trek 1420, but the handlebars are not quite so high. I normally rode the Trek, but I think I had a flat for that one fateful Friday when I took the Schwinn.

In consulting after the accident with the folks at Coventry Cycleworks, they recommended that I visit the Rivendell Bicycle Works website. They have a different view on bicycle fitting, saying that most everyone is riding with their drop bars way too low. I believe what they said is that for most people, the top of the bar is where the bottom should be for touring, or comfortable riding in traffic. Here's Rivendell's website for you to check out:

http://www.rivbike.com/how_to_pick_your_bike/our_approach_to_fit_sizing_and_riding_position

So I decided not to get the recumbant unless I had one more accident that I could attribute, even in part, to the bicycle design. When several months later I went over the handlebars on a bike path (mentioned above, where the front wheel caught in a crack between planks of the bike path), that was it. I went to Coventry and put money down on the Rans Stratus Recumbant.

What would those be, and how does a 'bent solve them?[/QUOTE]

I'll write more about the advantages of a long-wheelbase recumbant in commuting tomorrow. For now I'll simply mention a couple of things:

--Increased visibility to traffic (because its unusual, people notice).
--Increased visibility of the road behind and in front (two great mirrors looking back, very good visibility because I'm not looking down at times (almost unavoidable on upright bikes).
--Riding feet-first, not head-first.

More later, the dishes are calling.

John