Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Who is responsible for your safety?

Just one more post.

I don't really get the distinction between "I screwed up" and "How did I screw up"? After all, what's the point of asking yourself how you screwed up if you haven't accepted that you did screw up?


I knew you'd ask that! Because of the question mark. The issue is up in the air. And before you get all legal on me, because I interpreted it that way in your post.



Anyway, I think another point of Robert's, which he illustrated with his pretty detailed analysis and questioning of the Mercedes incident, is that there are many, many factors that contribute to any crash. ...

The point is there is always (or close enough to always) something the cyclist could have done, and arguably should have done, to avoid the crash, and it is the job of the downed safe/smart cyclist to figure out what that was. That's what matters, because that's what he has control over. That's where his thinking should be.


It's that difference between always and close enough to always that we are fussing over. One can construct scenarios up the wazoo where the cyclist get's whacked and there is nothing he could have done to save himself, except having stayed at home. We could argue all day about it and you could claim that you'd "Kobayashi Maru" your way out of it, but "always" is pretty tough to support.



Finally, and this is my main point, is that I think the amount of whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.


Yeah. I agree with that.

HH the real issue is how to get that 30 years of experience into a newbie cyclists' head... it simply ain't gonna happen.

Our traffic system is based on rules and co-operation... thus the expectation of a newbie cyclist is that things will work for them on a bike, pretty much as they do for them in an auto. That's an important issue, but a separate one. The one I'm trying to address in this thread is how you get Robert's "blame is dangerous" concept into the head of a cyclist with 30 years of experience...



The fox will do only what it takes to complete his goal of dinner... the odd motorist or two will forsake their goal for the sake of the notion... a concept where motorists believe that "bikes are supposed to get out of the way." Motorists can and will forego their ultimate driving goals and personal safety to get around a cyclist... in the face of oncoming traffic, to the extent of cutting off the cyclist, and for no other reason other than simply "to get around a cyclist." This is one reason that motorists constantly whine that they "will be forced into oncoming traffic to pass a cyclist if a 3 foot rule is enacted." Motorists have no problem dealing with slow moving trucks and cars, and will wait to cross the double yellow in those cases, but put a cycist into the picture, and suddenly a motorist is "forced" to cross the double yellow.

Two more easy examples: A right turning motorist will move across a double yellow to get around a destination positioned cyclist going straight despite a red light 2 car lenghts away. A right turning motorist will move into a left lane to right hook a cyclist in the right lane to make a driveway entrance that can easily be negotiated by moving to the right of the cyclist.

In all these cases, motorists are violating their own personal safety to carry out moves that do not gain them anything, but they are some how inclined to do so.
Of course, a cyclist with 30 years of experience who gets the "blame is dangerous" concept would not look at these hypothetical scenarios based on speculation (hey zeyton, see how useful they are?) as being examples of insurmountable situations for the cyclist, but instead would ask the following question (or something similar):

Given that there is an odd motorist or two every now and then out there who will foresake his own safety goals in order to "teach a cyclist a lesson", or whatever, what can I as a cyclist on the road do to be best prepared for the near certitude of encountering one of these jokers sooner or later?

From that general question, he might move on to the specifics of each scenario, and perhaps start a separate thread at BF A&S for each, providing a few more details, and getting input from the A&S community on how a cyclist might best prepare for them. Or he might focus on the general question and look for more general methods. Either way, he will not throw up his hands and think, "nothing I can do about those cases... if only the motorists would ..."

I repeat:

Finally, and this is my main point: I think the amount of whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.

Case in point: Gene's post above. (sorry Gene, but you walked into this one)

We could argue all day about it and you could claim that you'd "Kobayashi Maru" your way out of it, but "always" is pretty tough to support.

Captain Kirk reference: eeeexellent!

What to do
Spaceship crew
Crashing through my house
Captain Kirk
Stupid jerk
Punched me in the mouth.

Actually, it seems to me that Robert Hurst's posts in this thread were an exercise in backpedaling (rather inartfully, in my opinion) away from the much stronger and less equivocal statements in his book, which had been quoted here and received (apparently mostly because they were posted by HH) with great hostility.

I love the smell of Clarification in the morning.



I guess popularity is more important than consistency, when one wants to sell books.

Everything I wrote here is in the book as well. You might actually have to read it to know whether or not I have been consistent, eh? You can start with the introduction, where I go over this at some length.

And 'sell books' -- that's one of the funniest things I've heard all day sir.


It is interesting, however, that Robert jumped at the opportunity to challenge HH's consistency in a pair of threads here. ...

I have challenged HH's consistency in a ****load of threads. And I will continue to do so, if I happen to notice him lecturing on my ideas and the merits of VC 'autopilot' and other crazor concepts in the same breath, God luv im.


I wouldn't accuse him of doing this to curry favor with the masses -- ...

Whoops I think you just did.

Anyway, when I want to curry favor I've found that the best way to do it is to put on really elaborate gladitorial games and give away a lot of free corn.

Robert

Anyway, when I want to curry favor I've found that the best way to do it is to put on really elaborate gladitorial games and give away a lot of free corn.

Robert

That was f***ing hilarious----AND with that, this thread should close.

Finally, and this is my main point: I think the amount of whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.

And who but HH gives a darn if other cyclists' attitude do not reflect Hurst's perspective, Forester's perspective, HH's perspective, or even my 100% infallible perspective?

Captain Kirk reference: eeeexellent!


I wonder if I'm the first to use Kobayashi Maru as a verb? :p

Robert, I bought your book this weekend and am thoroughly enjoying reading it. Of secondary benefit is the fact that it is keeping me away from this thread. :D

[...] So what this boils down to is an attitude... that if you want to be extra safe, you have to go beyond just following the law, and proactively take as much control of the situation as you can. This isn't exactly new.. for cars this was called Defensive Driving. It's an attitude most of us take, to varying degrees.


Ah ha HAA! ... A lot of the stuff in my book is really just an attempt to bring time-honored Defensive Driving ideas to the literature of bike safety, where these ideas have been conspicuously absent. If you read the 'vehicular cycling' lexicon, from Forester to Allen to the EC-derived course materials from LAB, you'll find that these common sense notions of Defensive Driving -- that we experienced riders all pretty much agree upon as this thread shows -- have largely been left out. That's because Forester identified defensiveness itself as a prime safety hazard; and the idealized system he presented didn't require it -- just plug yourself into the system, ride predictably, and you'll be fine. I sense that to endorse a defensive mindset, to him, would have been a sort of admission that the system itself is not nearly as tidy as he made it out to be. He couldn't see the Forester for the trees, that guy. Anyway, his ideology filtered down to LAB and has been diluted and softened over time, but the hole where Defensive Driving should be is still there. This is such a glaring omission that today we find folks offering the incredibly hopeful suggestion that Defensive Driving ideology is actually 'implicit' in VC ideology. I find that to be nothing but a wish sandwich, and I think that the two ideologies in some ways are actually completely incompatible. But it is interesting to see what happens when people recognize the value -- the necessity -- of Chipcom Cycling®, while still attempting to cling to the banner of 'VC' at all costs, and start wavin in the wind.

Robert

Ah ha HAA! ... A lot of the stuff in my book is really just an attempt to bring time-honored Defensive Driving ideas to the literature of bike safety, where these ideas have been conspicuously absent. If you read the 'vehicular cycling' lexicon, from Forester to Allen to the EC-derived course materials from LAB, you'll find that these common sense notions of Defensive Driving -- that we experienced riders all pretty much agree upon as this thread shows -- have largely been left out. That's because Forester identified defensiveness itself as a prime safety hazard; and the idealized system he presented didn't require it -- just plug yourself into the system, ride predictably, and you'll be fine. I sense that to endorse a defensive mindset, to him, would have been a sort of admission that the system itself is not nearly as tidy as he made it out to be. He couldn't see the Forester for the trees, that guy. Anyway, his ideology filtered down to LAB and has been diluted and softened over time, but the hole where Defensive Driving should be is still there. This is such a glaring omission that today we find folks offering the incredibly hopeful suggestion that Defensive Driving ideology is actually 'implicit' in VC ideology. I find that to be nothing but a wish sandwich, and I think that the two ideologies in some ways are actually completely incompatible. But it is interesting to see what happens when people recognize the value -- the necessity -- of Chipcom Cycling®, while still attempting to cling to the banner of 'VC' at all costs, and start wavin in the wind.

Robert

There ain't no Chipcom Cycling®, Robert...though we have attempted to introduce a concept here called adaptive cycling, just because some have a need for labels (and to enable adherance to some thread ground rules), but quite frankly, you outline the concept quite well in your book...and although I don't agree with everything you write, you defintely deserve the credit for crafting something, finally, that is not the same old Forester vc paradigm - something that those of us who actually ride for more than sport can identify with and appreciate. Indeed, your retitled second edition arrived here today...I didn't even know you had released another edition until you mentioned it in one of these threads. ;)

Robert,
First, thanks for the book. I found it enormously helpful and insightful.

..."common sense notions of Defensive Driving"-- As a former NSC certified DD instructor (auto and heavy vehicle), I have long ago applied the principles of defensive driving to my cycling practices. It has served me well in urban and rural traffic since the early '80's... some close calls, a few jumped curbs, some rides through the grass, one wheel killing pothole (lesser of 2 evils) but no injuries beyond the epidermis. I'm sure there was some luck involved but I am a firm believer in making my own luck. Through it all, I never felt the need to ascribe to a code or style of riding or to apply any labels to my methods... I just went out and rode like I wanted to do it again tomorrow.

Before the thread closes, I'd like to sign up for the free corn. :D

I have challenged HH's consistency in a ****load of threads. And I will continue to do so, if I happen to notice him lecturing on my ideas and the merits of VC 'autopilot' and other crazor concepts in the same breath, God luv im.
I addressed this at length in #208. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4021870&postcount=208) (at the bottom, after all my whining about Chipcom and the final quote). Well, here are the most important elements:



Yes. with the understanding that cycling in traffic will necessarily involve some elements out of our control, for practicality's sake. (The uncomfortable fact is that there will always be some Russian Roulette out there. It doesn't do us much good to dwell on it -- worry about what you can do something about, which is often much more than we realize.)
Exactly. We're on the same page. It is an uncomfortable fact that we don't have total control, that no matter what we do, we might still get hurt or even killed. But, that's life, and there is no point in dwelling on it, especially since the likelihood of something like that happening is probably influenced by how much we dwell on it, since lack of confidence is probably not going to serve us well, tempered with not becoming overconfident, of course.
...

And I'm really confused by another thing -- how does your endorsement of this notion of gathering up all the responsibility that can be gathered jibe with the idea that you were promoting in another thread of VC as a 'safety net' for cyclists on 'autopilot'? I think what you are saying here would very much disapprove of what you were saying there.

Robert
I believe part of "planning for Murphy" (to use Chipcom's language) is to be "prepared for the unexpected". You have convinced me about the primary importance of emphasizing vigilance. That means looking for potential hazards, anticipating potential conflicts, etc. Something we all do, yet something nobody couldn't benefit from doing more of. On that much I think we agree.

When it comes to planning for Murphy, I also distinguish between "static conditions" and "dynamic conditions". Static conditions are conditions that are not going to change as I pass through: road width, lane width, stripe locations, trees, bushes, traffic signals, stop signs, intersections, sight lines from one point to another, curbs, etc. "Dynamic conditions" are those that will or may change as I pass through, and mostly involve people: drivers, cars, car doors, pedestrians, joggers, dogs, etc.

In any given situation, my "default" positioning, speed and where I choose to focus my attention is based solely on static conditions. That's where I use VC to guide me. That's the "safety net" to which I refer. This is why I ride way out in a lane on a quiet residential street.

At the same time, I am vigilant for ever-changing dynamic conditions - and I make my adjustments from default/assertive-VC/safety-net choices accordingly.

What happens, then, is most of the time my default VC positioning is already appropriate for whatever is thrown my way. For example, this is why I will adjust left when approaching an intersection (using Forester-brand "destination positioning") even before I notice a car approaching from the right, even if I overlook its presence altogether. In other words, I don't wait to notice a specific dynamic condition to trigger what I do; I use VC to hopefully have me do it even earlier, and put me in a better position to notice it anyway.

Once the VC "safety net" is ingrained in your instincts, it really pays off. For example, on many occasions while riding with other experienced cyclists I've noticed that whenever slow vehicles are encountered their instincts seem to be to pass on the right. No one seems to consider passing on the left as quickly as I do. They're often still slowing down after I've already glanced back, making sure no one else is passing on the left, and have merged into the adjacent lane accelerating around the left side of the car waiting to park (or whatever it is).

The other thing is that I believe no one, or at least almost no one, is capable of paying attention all the time; everyone, or nearly everyone, is going on "autopilot" at least some of the time. I totally agree with you that "maintaining a constant state of vigilance can be fun" (p. 69), but I don't think it's maintainable 100% of the time. Given that, I think appropriate "default autopilot behavior" is important to hone - because that's what protects you in those situations where you have to react instinctively before you even have a chance to realize what's happening. I've written more about that in two other recent threads:

VC best practices pay off (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=274044)
Honing and trusting your instincts (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275814)

One more example: One of my "VC" habits is to look back and adjust left, even if only a few inches, at every intersection approach. Because of that habit, if I happen to drift into autopilot, I still look back as I approach the intersection. The looking back causes me to notice traffic behind me or whatever. It's a "hook" to snap me out of autopilot.

So, it is because of the responsibility that I have to my safety that I choose to develop best practices that allow me to be positioned where I am mostly likely able to maintain my safety most effectively. I have found that making defaulting to VC positioning a habit accomplishes exactly that.

I hope that explains how my endorsement of this notion of gathering up all the responsibility that can be gathered jibes with the idea that of VC as a 'safety net' for cyclists on 'autopilot'.

Either way, he will not throw up his hands and think, "nothing I can do about those cases... if only the motorists would ..."

I repeat:

Finally, and this is my main point: I think the amount of whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.

Case in point: Gene's post above. (sorry Gene, but you walked into this one)


I never said there was nothing one could do about those motorists that act out some strange "notion" when cyclists are present.

I have managed to avoid being injured by them.

I have said however that they tend to aggravate me and I will continue to rant about them as they are acting in a manner that is very inconsistent with all the VC theory and safe driving practices.

I have said that they are unpredictable and that they act out in ways that are counter to "trust and verify" and do so in particular due a cyclist in their presence. (I have never had a motorist act in such a manner when I am driving.)

Perhaps a good example is the member of the local bike coalition that just had a baseball bat thrown through their spokes.

My point is that these folks are NOT predictable, and ARE responsible for their actions, which they voluntarily undertake.

There, I put it in bold just like you, to give it the same emphasis. :rolleyes:

My point is that these folks are NOT predictable, and ARE responsible for their actions, which they voluntarily undertake.
They are NOT responsible for their actions (it would be less aggravating if they were). If they were responsible, they would not be threats to your safety.

Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.

And they are most certainly not responsible for your safety.

Stop expecting them to be.

"The successful urban cyclist counts on nothing but chaos and stupidity." -Robert Hurst

Edit: The word "responsible" has multiple meanings in the English language. The meaning I intended above is:

capable of being trusted : a responsible adult.

Obviously, if one interprets my point using the meaning of "responsible" to be "having an obligation to do something", then my point becomes nonsense, and you could play silly semantics games all day.

ignore---stupid post---damn beer--i shake my fist at uou!!!!!

T
Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.



To use Brian's analogy... with a cyclist "pulling strings" to make things happen... what happens when a motorist "cuts the strings?"

Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.
My goodness. :eek: I suppose I should thank you, Helmet Head. That goes against every single thing I have ever been taught in my life or believe about personal, moral, social, and collective responsibility and accountability - from both spiritual and secular points of view. I always had mixed feelings about Vehicular Cycling, but you've helped clarify where I really stand in this whole matter. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Dayum, now I can run out and do whatever I want, I'm not responsible for my actions!

"Judge, I'd like to refer you to Post #314, paragraph 2 of the "Who is responsible for your safety?" thread in the Advocacy & Safety forum of Bikeforums.net, where the honorable Mr. Helmet Head clearly dicates that nobody is responsible for their actions. Based on this profound statement by a legal titan, I hereby move for imediate dismissal of the charges against me."

:rolleyes:

Dayum, now I can run out and do whatever I want, I'm not responsible for my actions!

"Judge, I'd like to refer you to Post #314, paragraph 2 of the "Who is responsible for your safety?" thread in the Advocacy & Safety forum of Bikeforums.net, where the honorable Mr. Helmet Head clearly dicates that nobody is responsible for their actions. Based on this profound statement by a legal titan, I hereby move for imediate dismissal of the charges against me."

:rolleyes:
Sure it will work. The only possible charge to the Jury from the Judge will be:

If the defendent is full of "it" you must acquit!

They are NOT responsible for their actions (it would be less aggravating if they were). If they were responsible, they would not be threats to your safety.

Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.

And they are most certainly not responsible for your safety.

Stop expecting them to be.

Absurd conclusions. If they drove responsibly and safely, they indeed, would not be threats to our safety. Of course they are not responsible for our safety like a nursemaid, however, they are responsible for driving safely. And that has both direct and indirect implications upon not just cyclist's safety, but everyone else. Despite your protestations to the contrary.

Finally, and this is my main point, is that I think the amount of whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.


Yeah. I agree with that.

Hubris. That's what it is hubris. I've had an amazingly long run without a near miss of any kind, so i guess I was getting cocky.

It took the cycling gods less than twenty four hours to come down on me for that. This morning on my way to work, the closest close call I've ever had.
A right hook from a small purple sedan driven by a guy who looked and sounded like Woody Allen.

My first thought was not to wonder what I had done wrong. My first thought was to catch the guy and remove his lungs from
his chest cavity. When I did catch up to him, I had calmed down enough so that all he got was an adrenelin-fired tongue lashing.

For the rest of the ride, I did have the chance to reflect on the "where did I go wrong?" question. It was apparent from
what he kept trying to say as I screamed at him, that he "was just trying to get around" me. So he saw me, but misjudged. It's
a busy road I failed to pick out the sound of his approach from the other traffic. I don't use a mirror. So I think corrective
action number one is:

Get a mirror.

This particular road is used as a two lanes each way road, but it is not legally wide enough for a two lanes each way road.
It is not stripped for two lanes, and there is no fog line. I'm already part of a group advocating to have the road either widened
or properly stripped. Anyway, given my natural tendencies I ride about three feet out from the end of the usable pavement.
On this road, I should be at least another two feet out. If I had been further out then the right hooker might not have been
tempted to try and get around me. So, corrective action number two.

Ride further out from the edge of the pavement.

Oh, and corrective action number three. I no longer agree that there is too much whining and complaining and blaming of motorists.

Speedo

Oh and corrective action number three. I no longer agree that there is too much whining and complaining and blaming of motorists.


Glad it was just a near miss and all you lost was some temper. ;)

The thing about most theories and political rhetoric is that, while great for epic heated debates, they pretty much go out the window when the rubber actually meets the road and we have to start paying attention to, understanding and dealing with reality as it is, not how we wish it would be.

So, drivers are not responsible for throwing baseball bats at cyclists. Lordy lordy.

They are NOT responsible for their actions (it would be less aggravating if they were). If they were responsible, they would not be threats to your safety.

Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.

Stop expecting them to be.


every adult without mental defect IS -- IS -- MOST DEFINITELY F***ING IS -- responsible for their own actions. it is a basic tenet of civilized society! and, to be further specific, this society has decided that driving is a privilege that can be extended to 16-year-olds, giving them a limited measure of responsibility. JUST BECAUSE THEY ACT IRRESPONSIBLY DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE! ! !

as another poster said, 'since i'm not responsible for my own actions, i can go out and commit mayhem', or words to that effect.

i guess, on your planet, everybody but you lives in an anarchic society. sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.
My goodness. :eek: I suppose I should thank you, Helmet Head. That goes against every single thing I have ever been taught in my life or believe about personal, moral, social, and collective responsibility and accountability - from both spiritual and secular points of view. I always had mixed feelings about Vehicular Cycling, but you've helped clarify where I really stand in this whole matter. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Well, I probably should have said:

They are irresponsible. They are IRresponsible. They are NOT (acting) responsible for their actions.

In any case, what does this have to do with Vehicular Cycling?

Oh, and corrective action number three. I no longer agree that there is too much whining and complaining and blaming of motorists.

In terms of your safety, what impact will whining and complaining and blaming of motorists have? If none, why is it a corrective action that you suddenly feel so strongly about?

Well, I probably should have said:

They are irresponsible. They are IRresponsible. They are NOT (acting) responsible for their actions.

In any case, what does this have to do with Vehicular Cycling?


Are you saying that this poll about responsibility is really about vehicular cycling?

Some friendly advice...I'd just let this thread die, because the more you say the more it goes badly for you. You've been pwn3d by so many people we may have to designate you as community property.

Absurd conclusions. If they drove responsibly and safely, they indeed, would not be threats to our safety. Of course they are not responsible for our safety like a nursemaid, however, they are responsible for driving safely. And that has both direct and indirect implications upon not just cyclist's safety, but everyone else. Despite your protestations to the contrary. Semantics. I was using "responsible" in a difference sense, as in:
capable of being trusted : a responsible adult. I was not using it in the sense of:
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role : the department responsible for education.
They are responsible (in the 2nd sense above), but they are also IRresponsible, and so not responsible (in the first sense). That's what I meant, but it's obviously confusing. I've updated the original post accordingly.

Semantics. I was using "responsible" in a difference sense,
Dang pesky English language. Who wudda thunk anybody would think HH meant what HH wrote?

Perhaps what HH really meant... but did not have the reading or writing skills to succinctly express, is:

Motorists ARE indeed responsible for their actions, but may chose to not drive responsibly, therefore cyclists should act accordingly.

Semantics. I was using "responsible" in a difference sense, as in:
capable of being trusted : a responsible adult. I was not using it in the sense of:
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role : the department responsible for education.
They are responsible (in the 2nd sense above), but they are also IRresponsible, and so not responsible (in the first sense). That's what I meant, but it's obviously confusing. I've updated the original post accordingly.


And I'm the one playing semantics?

Perhaps what HH really meant... but did not have the reading or writing skills to succinctly express, is:

Motorists ARE indeed responsible for their actions, but may chose to not drive responsibly, therefore cyclists should act accordingly.
But if HH wrote that as an OP there would be nothing to learn/teach/debate.

Instead we got another HH Brand Poll with HH Brand interpretations of the English language, HH Brand interpretations of someone else's book AND 320 (and counting) posts and replys. Do the math.

Announcement:

WOW - this forum is so much fun for me. It's like the gift that keeps on giving... :D

Please continue.

Perhaps what HH really meant... but did not have the reading or writing skills to succinctly express,
Are you holding me responsible for the fact that the word "responsible" has multiple meanings in English?


is:

Motorists ARE indeed responsible for their actions, but may chose to not drive responsibly, therefore cyclists should act accordingly.
Of course that's what I meant. Thanks for making the effort to understand what I meant, and not playing semantics by insisting on using a meaning of "responsible" that I obviously did not intend.

Are you holding me responsible for the fact that the word "responsible" has multiple meanings in English?It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

----

Hubris. That's what it is hubris. I've had an amazingly long run without a near miss of any kind, so i guess I was getting cocky.

It took the cycling gods less than twenty four hours to come down on me for that. This morning on my way to work, the closest close call I've ever had.
A right hook from a small purple sedan driven by a guy who looked and sounded like Woody Allen.

My first thought was not to wonder what I had done wrong. My first thought was to catch the guy and remove his lungs from
his chest cavity. When I did catch up to him, I had calmed down enough so that all he got was an adrenelin-fired tongue lashing.

For the rest of the ride, I did have the chance to reflect on the "where did I go wrong?" question. It was apparent from
what he kept trying to say as I screamed at him, that he "was just trying to get around" me. So he saw me, but misjudged. It's
a busy road I failed to pick out the sound of his approach from the other traffic. I don't use a mirror. So I think corrective
action number one is:

Get a mirror.

This particular road is used as a two lanes each way road, but it is not legally wide enough for a two lanes each way road.
It is not stripped for two lanes, and there is no fog line. I'm already part of a group advocating to have the road either widened
or properly stripped. Anyway, given my natural tendencies I ride about three feet out from the end of the usable pavement.
On this road, I should be at least another two feet out. If I had been further out then the right hooker might not have been
tempted to try and get around me. So, corrective action number two.

Ride further out from the edge of the pavement.

Oh, and corrective action number three. I no longer agree that there is too much whining and complaining and blaming of motorists.

Speedo
More important than a mirror, I think, is to develop the habit to always, without exception (which is easy to accomplish once you have developed the habit), look back over your shoulder at any approach to any intersection, even if you're going straight. It might seem silly at first, but it's an awesome habit to have. It automatically enhances your situational awareness to include the situation as it is developing behind you, and to give you a head's up with respect to whether you might have to make some kind of adjustment and/or specific effort to clarify your intent to an approaching driver.

Yes, he probably misjudged your speed and/or his speed, and that's probably because he was doing it subconcsciously, on autopilot. As wacky as it sounds, it's amazing how a simple look back over your shoulder can be effective in terms of snapping a driver out of whatever zone he is in, and back to reality. You can hear it immediately, as the pitch of the tire noise their car is making suddenly drops when they start slowing as soon as you turn your head. And if you can't hear it due to ambient noise, you can see it, as well as their usual adjustment left.

But the main thing is that the look back let's you know there is a potential conflict, and give syou the opportunity to deal with it.

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

---- You're right. I should have known better. My bad. I can't take it back. I've clarified the intended meaning in the original post, I've responded to most of those who seemed to (understandably) interpret it differently from what I intended.

What do you want from me?

Here is the original post, with updates:




My point is that these folks are NOT predictable, and ARE responsible for their actions, which they voluntarily undertake.
They are NOT responsible for their actions (it would be less aggravating if they were). If they were responsible, they would not be threats to your safety.

Repeat after me: They are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.

And they are most certainly not responsible for your safety.

Stop expecting them to be.

"The successful urban cyclist counts on nothing but chaos and stupidity." -Robert Hurst

Edit: The word "responsible" has multiple meanings in the English language. The meaning I intended above is:
capable of being trusted : a responsible adult. Obviously, if one interprets my point using the meaning of "responsible" to be "having an obligation to do something", then my point becomes nonsense, and you could play silly semantics games all day.

Are you holding me responsible for the fact that the word "responsible" has multiple meanings in English?


Of course that's what I meant. Thanks for making the effort to understand what I meant, and not playing semantics by insisting on using a meaning of "responsible" that I obviously did not intend.

Gee, I managed it fine... using the forms "responsible," and "responsibility." And I did it in one short sentence.



responsible
Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈspän(t)-sə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Anglo-French responsable, from respuns
Date: 1643
1 a: liable to be called on to answer b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2): being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c: liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a: able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : trustworthy b: able to choose for oneself between right and wrong


responsibility
Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: \ri-ˌspän(t)-sə-ˈbi-lə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 1771
1: the quality or state of being responsible: as a: moral, legal, or mental accountability b: reliability, trustworthiness
2: something for which one is responsible : burden <has neglected his responsibilities>


Perhaps it is you that has "a reading comprehension problem... " may I suggest a good dictionary. ;)

Announcement:

WOW - this forum is so much fun for me. It's like the gift that keeps on giving... :D

Please continue.

We'd just hate to see you bored and forced to do actual fun things. :D

We'd just hate to see you bored and forced to do actual fun things. :D


What, like ban people? :D ;)

Perhaps it is you that has "a reading comprehension problem... " may I suggest a good dictionary. ;)

Try to give the guy some good advice...but nooooooo, he just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper - I wonder what page we'll be on when he finally gets it deep enough that the Chinese members can chime in?

My first thought was not to wonder what I had done wrong. My first thought was to catch the guy and remove his lungs from his chest cavity. Would it be safe to say that your first thought/reaction indicates that you were surprised by what happened, that you were counting on something other than chaos and stupidity?

"The successful urban cyclist counts on nothing but chaos and stupidity." --Robert Hurst

Just asking...

Seriously, I think a good measure of how much you have taken to heart Hurst's attitude of taking total responsibility for your safety is how you react to surprising/chaotic/stupid behavior of drivers.

I believe that you eventually got to the "where did I go wrong?" question indicates an excellent step in the direction of adopting the responsibility attitude that Hurst preaches.

By the way, a more theoretical explanation for why a cyclist, or any driver of a slow moving vehicle, should look look back at all intersection approaches is based on the reason for why looking back is ever required: to look for potential conflicts with overtaking traffic from behind.

If you're moving at the normal speed of traffic, and you're going straight, then there is unlikely to be any conflict with faster traffic from behind turning across your path (even then, glancing back is still a good habit to have). But if you're moving slowly, that is not the case. If you're slow moving, a reasonable path for faster traffic behind you that needs to turn right is to pass you and then turn right. Therefore, there is a potential conflict with from-behind traffic that is much more likely than it is for normal-speed traffic.

That's why, to meet your total responsibility for your safety, it's essential to develop the habit to look back at every intersection approach, even if you're not turning left, but just going straight, even if you're not planning on adjusting your lateral position (because you're already correctly positioned for your go-straight destination).

What, like ban people? :D ;)

Oh my, a true sadist like me. Sorry Donna, I think I'm falling for this big lug! :love:

Oh my, a true sadist like me. Sorry Donna, I think I'm falling for this big lug! :love:

http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/couple.gif


-

What, like ban people? :D ;)

Are nominations being accepted? :D

Are nominations being accepted? :D

Volunteers only… you lookin’? :p

Thanks for making the effort to understand what I meant, and not playing semantics by insisting on using a meaning of "responsible" that I obviously did not intend.

Gee, I managed it fine... using the forms "responsible," and "responsibility." And I did it in one short sentence.

Yes, you did. I acknowledged that, and thanked you for it.


Perhaps it is you that has "a reading comprehension problem... " may I suggest a good dictionary. ;)
I thank you and you give me grief for I don't even know what. What's up with that?

What do you think I did not comprehend? Are you saying using one valid meaning of a word instead of another valid meaning constitutes a "reading comprehension problem"?

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

----
Wiser words have never been spoken on this forum.

In terms of your safety, what impact will whining and complaining and blaming of motorists have? If none, why is it a corrective action that you suddenly feel so strongly about?

I am loath to express any opinions right now. The cycling gods, having fired a warning shot across my bow this morning may decide to take further corrective action.

I'll venture this much, whining and complaining may not contribute much to my safety, but it was satisfying, and calming, to be able to whine and complain to people who, at the very least, understand why I felt shaken up.

Speedo

More important than a mirror, I think, is to develop the habit to always, without exception (which is easy to accomplish once you have developed the habit), look back over your shoulder at any approach to any intersection, even if you're going straight.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will try that as corrective action number 4.