tragedy in Solana Beach

[I-Like-To-Bike]

No evidence? What do you call this:


The existence of thousands of miles of roads in the U.S. where being "in the way" is the only way to ride these roads, combined with the obvious usage of these roads by cyclists every day, and the practically unheard of collision on such a road.
The relatively high number of cyclists who are killed on roads with shoulders and bike lanes -- where those cyclists were riding in the shoulder or bike lane, as in the tragedy of this thread.

"practically unheard of" by Helmet Head, and
"relatively high number of cyclists who are killed on roads with shoulders and bike lanes " as determined by Helmet Head are:
NOT Evidence; except for Helmet Head.

[Bekologist]

can a moderator move this to the VC subforum? It's sickening to see such rampant speculation in the aftermath of a tragedy that could have impacted ANY cyclist, regardless of their lane position.

[Helmet Head]

can a moderator move this to the VC subforum? It's sickening to see such rampant speculation in the aftermath of a tragedy that could have impacted ANY cyclist, regardless of their lane position.
Better yet, can whatever moderator combined the two threads please split them again, and move just the discussion thread to the VC forum?

[Bruce Rosar]

a bike lane places a cyclist out of a drivers' direct path.The path of a vehicle is where the driver allows it to go. The last time a cyclist was killed in the capital city of my state, he was traveling along well to the right of a solid white line marking the edge of the traveled way.

[Helmet Head]

"practically unheard of" by Helmet Head, and
"relatively high number of cyclists who are killed on roads with shoulders and bike lanes " as determined by Helmet Head are:
NOT Evidence; except for Helmet Head. Well, I would think it would be pretty compelling evidence for anyone who has critical thinking skills, pays much attention to bike-car crashes, and notices the dearth of crashes occuring on roads with narrow outside lanes and no shoulders, and the relatively high number of "oops I drifted" crashes on roads with shoulders and bike lanes, combined with knowledge gained empirically about the usage of roads with narrow outside lane and no shoulder or bike lanes by cyclists.

[Bekologist]

its sad, helemt head, to think that YOU TOO, or ANY of us, could have been killed by this drunk driver, despite our precautions taken to reduce the risk of overtaking collisions.

your 'swerve out of blocking position' could also have resulted in a collision, why do you wrongly assume your technique provides a magic cloak of invunerabilty?

[CTAC]

Riding in the traffic lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way you are suggesting without [a mirror] is a pretty stupid idea. You can try it yourself, we'll always remember you.

Again, this is exactly what the vast majority of cyclists do -- because they have no choice and have no mirror -- on roads with narrow outside lanes.

Edit: See the OP of this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113) for video clip examples of how well this works.

First, the video clip shows a cyclist riding straight line in a very light traffic. You are suggesting moving into the traffic lane and move out to the shoulder as car approaches. Doing that without a mirror is a suicide behavior.

Second, while driving a car I was rear-ended three times when traffic slowed down. I was never in an accident when car strides out of the lane. Most of accidents I see around are rear-end collisions.

Just imagine the cyclist on the video approached by two cars from behind, one tailgating another. First car comes close to the cyclists and changes the lane without slowing down. Tailgating car driver is left with very little time to react. I've seen many close calls like that driving.

[banerjek]

HH - all your threads can be summarized as "use a mirror, stupid!". Whatever you are suggesting cannot be done without a mirror. I ride with a mirror myself, but not everyone can get used to it. Riding in the traffic lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way you are suggesting without one is a pretty stupid idea. You can try it yourself, we'll always remember you.
I think riding in heavy traffic without a mirror is not very bright, though I acknowledge that most people do not share my view. In areas where traffic is light, it is possible to track vehicles with your ear and by looking over your shoulder, but once it reaches a certain density, this is not possible.

Mirrors allow you to see people who can't hold a straight line as well as those who are pulling to the right so they can make a turn, accelerating onto a highway while looking over their left shoulder, jerks who are about to buzz you, extra wide vehicles that might be hanging over the shoulder, and other threats.

Mirrors are critical safety equipment for the simple reason that the worst threats come from behind. You have to watch in front too, but the cars and trucks moving at 65 mph close the distance to you much faster than you're approaching that muffler, large rock, or dead raccoon.

I ride in anything, and I do not believe it is particularly dangerous to ride in storms at night unless lightning is an issue or there is large debris flying around. I will not ride without mirrors though -- too dangerous for my blood.

[Helmet Head]

its sad, helemt head, to think that YOU TOO, or ANY of us, could have been killed by this drunk driver, despite our precautions taken to reduce the risk of overtaking collisions.
Of course it's possible, Bek, but that's no reason to not bother devising and using methods to take precautions to reduce the risk of overtaking collisions.

Again, this guy managed to drive home all the way to Escondido without, apparently, hitting anyone or anything else. The most likely explanation for what happened here is he did not notice the cyclist up ahead (because she was not in his direct path) and drifted at just the wrong moment. IF that's what happened, it seems to me that a reasonable way to reduce the risk of this type of overtaking collision is to do what you can to grab the attention of overtaking-potentially-drifting drivers long before they have reached you.


your 'swerve out of blocking position' could also have resulted in a collision, why do you wrongly assume your technique provides a magic cloak of invunerabilty?
Why do you insist on mischaracterizing an orderly lane change as "swerve out of blocking position"? Have you looked at those video clips (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113) yet? They vividly demonstrate what effect riding in a "blocking position" has on faster same direction traffic. The only difference is that in that case there is no bike lane for them to move into, so they don't, thus requiring motorists on a 45 mph arterial to either change lanes, or slow down to their 15 mph. All I'm suggesting is the same thing, except, if there is a bike lane, then, when the driver is just a few seconds from reaching you, preferably after they've slowed down at least a tad, look back over your right shoulder, make sure it's clear, and make a smooth and orderly lateral shift into the bike lane to make it easier for them to pass.

This is classic rules for drivers of slow moving vehicles": move right to let faster traffic pass, then move back into the main traffic lane after they have passed. It all comes down to whether drivers and you see and treat the bike lane as a lane, or a shoulder. I think the drivers see and treat the bike lane like a shoulder, so that's how I treat it. But there is nothing revolutionary here.

[Helmet Head]

Riding in the traffic lane in a dense fast-moving traffic the way you are suggesting without [a mirror] is a pretty stupid idea. You can try it yourself, we'll always remember you.

Again, this is exactly what the vast majority of cyclists do -- because they have no choice and have no mirror -- on roads with narrow outside lanes.

Edit: See the OP of this thread for video clip examples of how well this works.

First, the video clip shows a cyclist riding straight line in a very light traffic. You are suggesting moving into the traffic lane and move out to the shoulder as car approaches. Doing that without a mirror is a suicide behavior.

Second, while driving a car I was rear-ended three times when traffic slowed down. I was never in an accident when car strides out of the lane. Most of accidents I see around are rear-end collisions.

Just imagine the cyclist on the video approached by two cars from behind, one tailgating another. First car comes close to the cyclists and changes the lane without slowing down. Tailgating car driver is left with very little time to react. I've seen many close calls like that driving.

First, the video clip shows a cyclist riding straight line in a very light traffic. You are suggesting moving into the traffic lane and move out to the shoulder as car approaches. Doing that without a mirror is a suicide behavior.

Second, while driving a car I was rear-ended three times when traffic slowed down. I was never in an accident when car strides out of the lane. Most of accidents I see around are rear-end collisions.

Just imagine the cyclist on the video approached by two cars from behind, one tailgating another. First car comes close to the cyclists and changes the lane without slowing down. Tailgating car driver is left with very little time to react. I've seen many close calls like that driving.
Let's back up. To be clear, this tragedy did not occur in fast/dense traffic. In fact, of all the "oops I drifted" crashes I've ever heard of, I've never known of one to occur in a fast/dense traffic situation. I believe this is because in fast/dense traffic drivers tend to be paying much more attention and tracking the car in front of them. Where "oops I drifted" seems to always happen is when there is a significantly long gap in front of a driver - no one to follow. It is in those cases -- where there is a significant long gap -- that I use the method I'm talking about here. Typically, even when traffic is fast and dense, it comes in spurts due to "throttling" caused by traffic signals. During those gaps I move left, until traffic is again approaching.

As far as the rear-ending thing goes, I think bicyclists are much less likely to get rear-ended than are cars, for the same reason that motorcyclists are much less likey to get rear-ended than are cars. Besides, on roads with sufficient margin space to get out of the way, I'm talking about smoothly moving into that space well before they reach you anyway, so you're at no more risk of being rear-ended than is a cyclist who was "off to the side" the whole time.
The point is to grab the attention of the approaching from-behind driver before you move aside, that's all.

[mostatebears]

ACtually the statistics say the opposite of that. You are much more likely to be killed by a car pulling out in front of you or you riding in front of cross traffic by missing the red light or stop sign etc.

Looking in a mirror just takes away your focus of seeing and avoiding something that could very well kill you and makes you concentrate on a small threat that you probably could not do anything about anyway.



I think riding in heavy traffic without a mirror is not very bright, though I acknowledge that most people do not share my view. In areas where traffic is light, it is possible to track vehicles with your ear and by looking over your shoulder, but once it reaches a certain density, this is not possible.

Mirrors allow you to see people who can't hold a straight line as well as those who are pulling to the right so they can make a turn, accelerating onto a highway while looking over their left shoulder, jerks who are about to buzz you, extra wide vehicles that might be hanging over the shoulder, and other threats.

Mirrors are critical safety equipment for the simple reason that the worst threats come from behind. You have to watch in front too, but the cars and trucks moving at 65 mph close the distance to you much faster than you're approaching that muffler, large rock, or dead raccoon.

I ride in anything, and I do not believe it is particularly dangerous to ride in storms at night unless lightning is an issue or there is large debris flying around. I will not ride without mirrors though -- too dangerous for my blood.

[Bruce Rosar]

You are suggesting moving into the traffic lane ... as car approaches. Doing that without a mirror is a suicide behavior.While I personally find a mirror to be a nice accessory, I think the case for mirrors is overstated just a wee bit. During almost half a century of pedaling on roads, I've just turned my head (to see if I need to yield) many times. No mirrors (or smoke) needed. ;)

[Bruce Rosar]

In areas where traffic is light, it is possible to track vehicles ... by looking over your shoulder, ...When I drive a vehicle (whether pedal or motor), I only track the other vehicles that I may have to yield to. Those are all in front of my vehicle.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

ACtually the statistics say the opposite of that... Looking in a mirror just takes away your focus of seeing and avoiding something that could very well kill you and makes you concentrate on a small threat.
What statistics are saying things to you about which "threats" are "actually" small and which are not?

[Helmet Head]

...
Just imagine the cyclist on the video approached by two cars from behind, one tailgating another. First car comes close to the cyclists and changes the lane without slowing down. Tailgating car driver is left with very little time to react. I've seen many close calls like that driving. I'm responding to this particular point in the cyclist View videos (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113) thread.

Here's the post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4062161&postcount=30).

[banerjek]

ACtually the statistics say the opposite of that. You are much more likely to be killed by a car pulling out in front of you or you riding in front of cross traffic by missing the red light or stop sign etc.

Looking in a mirror just takes away your focus of seeing and avoiding something that could very well kill you and makes you concentrate on a small threat that you probably could not do anything about anyway.
Statistics are misleading. You need to be aware of where the threats are and monitor them. This tragedy occurred on a highway. There are a lot fewer places for cars to pull out out from, and by definition, there will be fewer lights and stop signs. None of these were visible in the photo of the accident scene.

That makes the biggest threat to safety vehicles approaching from behind and conditions on the shoulder that could cause you to spill.

Most inexperienced cyclists are afraid of the highway, won't ride there, and hang around in town. That they fall victim to the threats there is no surprise. One thing I'd observe in general is that a disproportionate number of the people who are fanatics about mirrors seem to put in a lot of miles and have been riding a long time. That doesn't make them right, but it's something to keep in mind.

[mostatebears]

My question to you would be...

What are you gonna do if a car comes up from behind and you "think" they are going to hit you?

Do you run off the road and risk injury?

What happens if they just get closer to you then other cars have before turning to go around then you just ran off the road and became injured for no reason.

Following your logic about riding in the country where the main threat is from behind maybe you should ride facing traffic?

[banerjek]

When I drive a vehicle (whether pedal or motor), I only track the other vehicles that I may have to yield to. Those are all in front of my vehicle.
You have to yield to anything that can kill you.

Let's suppose you have to ride across an exit ramp or an entrance ramp. As someone who does this 5 days a week, I assure you that the people on the entrance ramp are looking behind you rather than in front of them because they don't want to crash into cars that are moving at high speed. Even if you are directly in front of someone on a ramp, they may not be aware that you are there. I have been in other situations where a car lets up so I can get across the lane, but some jack***** behind them doesn't realize what is going on and passes by them on the right (i.e. on the shoulder).

On highways, cars go fast. If there is a shoulder, most cars will use it as an acceleration lane or a deceleration lane. When they do this, their attention is often focused on cars behind them or the java hut 1/8 mile ahead (i.e. they are not looking for people on the shoulder). If an emergency vehicle approaches from the rear, you should expect everyone to look in their rear view mirror to see what is happening while pulling over.

Highways are dangerous if you don't pay attention to what is going on behind you.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Yes, it's easy to imagine, but I never see it actually happen, and I've never heard of a crash actually caused by this.

I don't have to imagine it. It's happened plenty of times on my commute. I couldn't care less about evidence derived from what HH has or has not heard about.
I think drivers are much more likely to do that with a slow car or truck in front of them than a slow cyclist or bicyclist.

Fine that's what HH thinks.

But, again, when a drivers sight lines are so obstructed, he's much less likely to be tailgaiting. Also, the driver of a vehicle large enough to obstruct sight lines like that is less likely to drive in such a reckless manner.
But again, Fine, that's what HH thinks.
Of all the cyclist deaths reported on this forum in the last two years, I can only remember one that might fit in that category.

Fine HH thinks that the deaths, or incidents reported in BF are some sort of representative sample of the cycling environment and makes up some sort of reliable database. Sure, OK, Yeah, that's the ticket. It's as solid evidence as any other biased guesswork, I suppose.

[Helmet Head]

Looking in a mirror just takes away your focus of seeing and avoiding something that could very well kill you and makes you concentrate on a small threat that you probably could not do anything about anyway.
Glancing in a mirror while on a bike takes away your focus from what's ahead no more than glancing in a mirror while driving a car or motorcycle.

If you remember your driver training, every few seconds you're supposed to glance in your mirrors as well as your guages. There's a good reason for that, and the slower the vehicle you're driving, the more relevant that becomes. I learned to drive in a 1971 VW bus, and on any uphilll grade of any significant length I learned to monitor to the rear to know when to temporarily move into the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass. This is standard stuff for drivers of slow moving vehicles.

While I personally find a mirror to be a nice accessory, I think the case for mirrors is overstated just a wee bit. During almost half a century of pedaling on roads, I've just turned my head (to see if I need to yield) many times. No mirrors (or smoke) needed.
I agree, a mirror is probably not required, but it is particularly useful if you're in the habit of taking the lane during gaps in faster same direction traffic even when there is plenty of margin space (be it shoulder, bike lane or just extra lane width).

A glance back with a mirror takes significantly less time than a physical look back over the shoulder. However, I never move laterally, or even cross a potential stream of turning traffic (even when I'm not moving laterally at all), without first looking back over my shoulder to make sure it's safe.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

My question to you would be...
Are your rhetorical questions the statistics that were telling you which threats were small?

[banerjek]

My question to you would be...

What are you gonna do if a car comes up from behind and you "think" they are going to hit you?

Do you run off the road and risk injury?

What happens if they just get closer to you then other cars have before turning to go around then you just ran off the road and became injured for no reason.

Following your logic about riding in the country where the main threat is from behind maybe you should ride facing traffic?
If you pay attention to the traffic, you know if it is going to hit you. And if you think you are about to be hit, yes, you bail. That is why you were watching. I have only bailed twice in my life, and in only one of those cases did I actually have to leave the road and crash. I was very glad I did that. On the other situation, I had to unclip but I didn't spill.

There have been other cases where I just shifted over a foot or two to give myself some more clearance from a dancing trailer or someone who seemed to be drifting. If I see someone is going to intentionally buzz me, I actually shift left to push them out (since they don't really want to hit me) so I can shift right at the last second.

There is no reason to bail unless a collision is imminent. If you watch your mirrors, you will know exactly how much space you have.

Riding against traffic is very dangerous. People don't expect it. People are trained to expect things are going the same direction in their lane. Going the opposite direction as everyone else confuses them and screws up their distance calculations of where they will meet you (especially at night). Cars do not look right before they turn right.

[banerjek]

Glancing in a mirror while on a bike takes away your focus from what's ahead no more than glancing in a mirror while driving a car or motorcycle.
Actually less so for the simple reason that you don't cover ground as quickly.

[Helmet Head]

My question to you would be...

What are you gonna do if a car comes up from behind and you "think" they are going to hit you?

Do you run off the road and risk injury?

What happens if they just get closer to you then other cars have before turning to go around then you just ran off the road and became injured for no reason.
Are you talking about a road with or without sufficient margin (shoulder, bike lane or just extra lane width) to get out of their way?

On roads with sufficient margin, if it's safe and reasonable to do so, I look back and smoothly move into the margin in an orderly fashion before they reach me, whether I think they are going to hit me or not.

On roads without sufficient margin, moving out of the way is not an option by definition. On roads like this, as drivers are approaching from behind, there are multiple threshholds. Once they cross the first one without giving me a sign that they've noticed me (slow down, change lanes, adjust laterally, honk, flash lights, etc.), I will often do something to grab their attention (stand up, zig zag a couple of times, look back, use the slow/stop left arm signal, etc.) In practice, that always works: they react and are no longer a real threat (thought I continue to periodically monitor). In theory, I suppose one day it's possible that nothing will work. In such a highly unlikely situation, I wouldn't be averse to hugging the curb or ditching in a dirt shoulder if it ever comes to that, but it has never even come close.


Following your logic about riding in the country where the main threat is from behind maybe you should ride facing traffic?
First, even on country roads I don't believe the main threat is from behind, especially if you manage from-behind traffic in the manner I've been writing about. Second, even if it were the main threat, I disagree that facing traffic is the way to go, for reasons that include faster closing speeds, doing something unexpected, significantly increasing your risk to cross traffic collisions, etc.

[Helmet Head]

When I drive a vehicle (whether pedal or motor), I only track the other vehicles that I may have to yield to. Those are all in front of my vehicle. When I drive a vehicle (whether pedal or motor), I only track the other vehicles that I may have to yield to. That's mostly only those in front of my vehicle, but also includes emergency vehicles with sirens or lights behind me, and, when I'm driving a slow moving vehicle (whether pedal or motor), often includes faster same direction traffic behind me, especially when it's safe and reasonable to yield to them by moving aside.

[Helmet Head]

Glancing in a mirror while on a bike takes away your focus from what's ahead no more than glancing in a mirror while driving a car or motorcycle.
Actually less so for the simple reason that you don't cover ground as quickly. :beer:

Good point.

[Bruce Rosar]

You have to yield to anything that can kill you. Yielding when others don't expect you to (i.e., when you have the right of way) makes you less predictable, which makes it more likely that others won't be successful in avoiding a collision with you.

Even if you are directly in front of someone, they may not be aware that you are there. Anything's possible. On the other hand, the car-bike collision statistics here indicate that cyclists in the middle of marked travel lane aren't being run over.

Highways are dangerous if you don't pay attention to what is going on behind you. IMHO, highways are more dangerous when folks who are moving forward are spending time looking the other way.

[sbhikes]

This topic belongs in the VC sub-forum!

[Helmet Head]

Fine HH thinks that the deaths, or incidents reported in BF are some sort of representative sample of the cycling environment and makes up some sort of reliable database. Sure, OK, Yeah, that's the ticket. It's as solid evidence as any other biased guesswork, I suppose.
We have members from all over the U.S. When cyclists are killed, they are often reported here. Given how much attention I've given to this issue, the ratio of this type of crash -- because of how often and how strongly I assert that it's rare, and how many people here would love to provide evidence of me being wrong -- is much more likely to be over represented in our sample as compared to a truly representative sample. Don't you think?

[Helmet Head]

This topic belongs in the VC sub-forum!
I have to agree at this point. It's shame it (the discussion thread) was merged into the main thread.

[Bruce Rosar]

One thing I'd observe in general is that a disproportionate number of the people who are fanatics about mirrors seem to put in a lot of miles and have been riding a long time. That doesn't make them right, but it's something to keep in mind.A mirror is nice when I'm sharing a marked lane. When that lane isn't the right most marked lane, two mirrors (one on each side) is nicer still. But that's just so that I don't have to bother looking over a shoulder as much. Due to the limitations of mirrors, I always look over a shoulder before making a lateral move.

[Bruce Rosar]

This topic belongs in the VC sub-forum!
Quoting from a post back on page 1 of this thread:
Note: This is not a VC topic; it is a safety topic.

[Helmet Head]

When that lane isn't the right most marked lane, two mirrors (one on each side) is nicer still.
:beer:

The potential value of two mirrors for a cyclist would probably only occur to a genuine vehicular cyclist.

[Helmet Head]

Quoting from a post back on page 1 of this thread: I could see it going either way at this point.

Originally, the separate thread I created was supposed to discuss all kinds of methods that one might use to reduce the probability of this type of crash. But apparently riding vehicularly is the only method anyone can think of, or wants to discuss. Given that, I guess it should go in the VC subforum.

[banerjek]

Yielding when others don't expect you to (i.e., when you have the right of way) makes you less predictable, which makes it more likely that others won't be successful in avoiding a collision with you.

News flash -- the reason cyclists get hit from behind is that the motorist didn't see them in first place.

Predictability is important. However, you really need to know what's going on around you. Otherwise, you're entrusting too much of your safety to some nitwit who's not paying attention.

[Helmet Head]

News flash -- the reason cyclists get hit from behind is that the motorist didn't see them in first place.

Predictability is important. However, you really need to know what's going on around you. Otherwise, you're entrusting too much of your safety to some nitwit who's not paying attention. Actually, "see" is an ambiguous term, especially in this context.

I prefer the term "notice" as in: the reason cyclists get hit from behind is that the motorist didn't notice them in the first place.

I used to be seduced by bike lanes into thinking it didn't matter whether overtaking motorists "saw" or noticed me since I was in the bike lane and they were in their lane. That is what makes bike lanes so appealing, is it not? Then I read/heard about one too many of these "oops I drifted" crashes, and began to question all my premises and rethink the whole thing. Hence the method I use today, which is based on the premise that getting noticed (by the driver of the first car coming after a gap of any significant length) is key, and being in their path up ahead as they are approaching (but out of the way by the time they reach me) is the best way to get noticed, and not being in their path the whole time they are approaching is an effective way to not get noticed until it's too late.

[Bekologist]

helemt head, you too could have been killed by this drunk driver.

Can a Moderator PLEASE MOVE THIS TO THE VC SUBFORUM? Its' turning into a technique soapbox by one specific poster about HIS techniques....

Yes, Mr. head, riding vehicularily is the way to best prevent these accidents,

and riding 'vehicularily' on a road with a bike lane acceptable for use like the stretch of Highway 1 this tragedy occured on, IS TO RIDE IN THE BIKE LANE until there is a reason to leave the lane, and not your "block-n-swerve" method.

[mostatebears]

:beer:

Good point.

I dont think that is a good point because most cyclists with a mirror look in the darn thing all the time. Their eyes are constantly darting from the road to the mirror and back to the road terrified that someone will run over them from behind. A driver would use the mirror only when planning a lane change etc. This very conversation is about people using a mirror to watch and study overtaking traffic so I think thats a big difference.

At least that has been my experience with cycling mirrors.

[Bruce Rosar]

News flash -- the reason cyclists get hit from behind is that the motorist didn't see them in first place. The reason? That sort of statement is why I don't trust the news anymore. ;)

Predictability is important. However, you really need to know what's going on around you. Otherwise, you're entrusting too much of your safety to some nitwit who's not paying attention.While situational awareness is an advantage, not paying sufficient attention to what's happening in the direction you're moving can lead to nitwit-like mistakes. :(

[I-Like-To-Bike]

On the other hand, the car-bike collision statistics here indicate...
Here? Where is here? Bike Forums? What statistics?

[Helmet Head]

I dont think that is a good point because most cyclists with a mirror look in the darn thing all the time. Their eyes are constantly darting from the road to the mirror and back to the road terrified that someone will run over them from behind. A driver would use the mirror only when planning a lane change etc. This very conversation is about people using a mirror to watch and study overtaking traffic so I think thats a big difference.

At least that has been my experience with cycling mirrors.
I've certainly seen a lot of cyclists misuse mirrors, including using mirror checks instead of turn-the-head look backs prior to lateral moves.

Certainly spending too much time looking in the mirror is a problem in traffic (regardless of whether your vehicle is pedaled or motored).

But I'm talking about proper mirror usage: where you periodically glance in the mirror to assess the situation as it unfolds behind you, just as you should in any vehicle, particularly when operating a slow moving vehicle.

[Helmet Head]

I don't have to imagine it. It's happened plenty of times on my commute. I couldn't care less about evidence derived from what HH has or has not heard about.
Can you or anyone else cite an article about even one bike-car traffic collision like this? That is:


Cyclist riding in outside lane on one of the plethora of U.S. roads with no shoulder, bike lane or extra lane space where the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
Cyclist hit from behind by someone who was tailgating someone else who changed lanes at the last moment, and the tailgater didn't have time to avoid hitting the cyclist.



Fine that's what HH thinks.


But again, Fine, that's what HH thinks.


Fine HH thinks that the deaths, or incidents reported in BF are some sort of representative sample of the cycling environment and makes up some sort of reliable database. Sure, OK, Yeah, that's the ticket. It's as solid evidence as any other biased guesswork, I suppose.
Yes, that's what HH thinks. Isn't that what forums like this are for? Sharing what we think, and why we think it?

There is not enough data from studies to make definitive conclusions about much of this. We have to rely on knowledge gained through empirical experience, as well as ideas gleaned from others, and apply critical thinking to all of it. Again, that's what I think...

[mostatebears]

I suppose I have convinced myself from studying the statistics that the LAB provides that 98% of crashes will happen because of something that happend in front of me.

50% of bike crashes are falls.
50% of bike crashes involve an auto.

4% of bike/car crashes are "over taking" types.

Of course everyone realizes that bike stats are flawed because noone has to report anything.

Anyway, I have convinced myself that I probably could not do anything about it anyway so why spend time worrying about it and peeking in a mirror. I will just continue to look ahead both in life and on my bike and if I get taken out from behind then so be it.

I doubt if that happens though.

[banerjek]

I dont think that is a good point because most cyclists with a mirror look in the darn thing all the time. Their eyes are constantly darting from the road to the mirror and back to the road terrified that someone will run over them from behind. A driver would use the mirror only when planning a lane change etc.
Looking behind has nothing to do with fear. And people should be constantly checking their mirrors just as they should constantly be checking in front of them. That's what being aware means. Unless you're bombing down the side of a mountain at 50mph, it's not hard to notice even small debris long before you encounter it. Watching the road when you're going only about 20mph just isn't that hard.

As far as driving goes, the mirrors are probably used less frequently, but they still need to be checked often. If someone is riding your tail, you have to adjust your driving style to prevent them from running into you. You can be prepared for aggressive drivers and emergency vehicles. Plus, some people are just stupid.

A few years ago, I avoided a 5 car crash (which involved the 3 cars behind me and the 2 in front) because I saw some jack***** in my mirrors that hadn't noticed that the cars in front of him were moving slowly. I drove onto the median. He hit the cars behind me hard enough to push them into the cars in front.

[Helmet Head]

I suppose I have convinced myself from studying the statistics that the LAB provides that 98% of crashes will happen because of something that happend in front of me.

50% of bike crashes are falls.
50% of bike crashes involve an auto.

4% of bike/car crashes are "over taking" types.

Of course everyone realizes that bike stats are flawed because noone has to report anything.

Anyway, I have convinced myself that I probably could not do anything about it anyway so why spend time worrying about it and peeking in a mirror. I will just continue to look ahead both in life and on my bike and if I get taken out from behind then so be it.

I doubt if that happens though. The primary reason I use a mirror is so that I can spend more time in a more visible/predictable further-left position (even when there is plenty of margin/shoulder/bike lane space) in order to reduce my chances of having cross-traffic conflicts with someone in front of me. Whenever faster same direction traffic (fsdt) is not present, I'm taking the lane and monitoring for fsdt approaching from behind with a periodic mirror check/glance.

Becoming more conspicuous sooner to those approaching from behind, in order to reduce the likelihood of falling victim to an "oops I drifted" tragedy such as the one cited in the OP, is just a bonus.

[CTAC]

Whenever faster same direction traffic (fsdt) is not present, I'm taking the lane and monitoring for fsdt approaching from behind
This poor guy must have been following the same idea:
Seventy-four-year-old local man Gerrardus Sturkenboom died in Waikato Hospital, where he had been airlifted after the incident on State Highway 27 just south of Matamata on Friday afternoon.

His cycle was struck from behind by a four-wheel-drive vehicle.

Police say the driver had remained at the scene.

They say it seems the cyclist veered into the path of the vehicle, and the driver was unable to avoid the crash.

http://www.crime.co.nz/displaynews.asp?id=70891

And if you google for "cyclist hit from behind" you'll find more cases like this one.

[SSP]

I dont think that is a good point because most cyclists with a mirror look in the darn thing all the time. Their eyes are constantly darting from the road to the mirror and back to the road terrified that someone will run over them from behind. A driver would use the mirror only when planning a lane change etc. This very conversation is about people using a mirror to watch and study overtaking traffic so I think thats a big difference.

At least that has been my experience with cycling mirrors.

Because of differences in speed, cyclists are overtaken by motor vehicles much, much more frequently than drivers of motor vehicles...so it makes sense that they check their mirrors somewhat more often. However, this doesn't imply that one is "terrified"...in fact, most users of mirrors ride more assertively and confidently because they can see (and, to a certain extent, control) overtaking traffic much more easily.

Using a properly adjusted cycling mirror to monitor overtaking traffic is no more difficult, and no more of a "distraction", than using the mirrors in your car. And, just like the mirrors in your car, they help to enhance "situational awareness" with a simple glance.

[SSP]

Anyway, I have convinced myself that I probably could not do anything about it anyway so why spend time worrying about it and peeking in a mirror. I will just continue to look ahead both in life and on my bike and if I get taken out from behind then so be it.

I doubt if that happens though.

Sounds like "blind faith" to me...

I prefer to use my mirror, which allows me to take the approach advocated by the late President Reagan with respect to the former Soviet Union's nuclear disarmament program..."Trust, but Verify".

[Helmet Head]

Sounds like "blind faith" to me...

I prefer to use my mirror, which allows me to take the approach advocated by the late President Reagan with respect to the former Soviet Union's nuclear disarmament program..."Trust, but Verify".
Hey, that's my line! :)


I'm not calling you paranoid and I think you and I are basically saying the same thing.

Maybe we should call it Reagan Cycling... "Trust but verify".

(from 9-30-05)

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1635814&postcount=21

[mostatebears]

Looking behind has nothing to do with fear. And people should be constantly checking their mirrors just as they should constantly be checking in front of them. That's what being aware means. Unless you're bombing down the side of a mountain at 50mph, it's not hard to notice even small debris long before you encounter it. Watching the road when you're going only about 20mph just isn't that hard.

As far as driving goes, the mirrors are probably used less frequently, but they still need to be checked often. If someone is riding your tail, you have to adjust your driving style to prevent them from running into you. You can be prepared for aggressive drivers and emergency vehicles. Plus, some people are just stupid.

A few years ago, I avoided a 5 car crash (which involved the 3 cars behind me and the 2 in front) because I saw some jack***** in my mirrors that hadn't noticed that the cars in front of him were moving slowly. I drove onto the median. He hit the cars behind me hard enough to push them into the cars in front.

Thats my point....you cannot by definition constantly look ahead and behind.

Id rather just focus ahead because that is where the overwhelming amount of bike/car crashes occur. Thats just me and you certainly can do whatever you want. :)

As a cyclists I want you looking ahead and not behind you when driving please.