Advocacy & Safety - Obeying the rules and vigilance

The reason I'm having this poll is to start a discussion about an issue over which I have a disagreement with Robert Hurst [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4140486&postcount=51)] [2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4141419&postcount=53)] and Brian Ratliff [3 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4140602&postcount=52)] [4 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4141430&postcount=54)].


What is the relationship between obeying the rules of the road, and being vigilant?

I think we can all agree that you can be vigilant even when not obeying the rules. Arguably, you have to be more vigilant when not obeying the rules...

But can you obey the rules without being vigilant? I don't see how. For example, you might be able to pass a driver's test, or the LCI road test (http://bikeleague.org/programs/education/seminars.php), without being vigilant, but can you get a score of 100%?

If you're not paying attention, it seems to me you're much more likely to overlook a stop sign, drift out of your lane, not see the pedestrian (and violate their right of way), use incorrect lane positioning, etc., than if you are being vigilant and trying to obey the rules. Obeying the rules requires knowing the rules, and when which ones apply. Understanding why which rules apply when is a great help too. Knowing and following the rules also helps you discern where you should be paying the most attention at any given time: in particular following the rules puts you in a position to better recognize when someone else is not following the rules.

All of these considerations combined convinces me that following the rules requires vigilance; that it is impossible to follow the rules (consistently) without being vigilant.

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I don't agree with your choices... or I don't understand the question. Is that because I am not being vigilent?

No matter how much I pay attention to the rules... there is no guarantee that everyone else is paying attention to the rules... thus I must still look out for the other guy, the rule breaker.

But you seem to be aluding to something else altogether...

I don't agree with your choices... or I don't understand the question. Is that because I am not being vigilent?

No matter how much I pay attention to the rules... there is no guarantee that everyone else is paying attention to the rules... thus I must still look out for the other guy, the rule breaker.

But you seem to be aluding to something else altogether... That's a separate but related issue, and I do address it in the OP: "following the rules puts you in a position to better recognize when someone else is not following the rules."

The question is: how well can you obey the rules without being vigilant (including paying attention to what others are doing and whether they are obeying the rules or not)? I say... not very well.

Ahem...(clears throat)...

I got a ticket once.

:eek:

Yes. I couldn't believe it. I questioned the polite officer. "Are you sure? <disbelief> Are you positive? Did you actually see me run that stop sign?" I really thought this policeman was mistaken.

Well, I did run it. In fact, he told me I went through it without even slowing down.

:eek: :eek:

A first. He convinced me. Why would he lie (and give me a $100 ticket) if he didn't see it?

Problem is, I never saw it. Really.

So I have to vote, "obedience requires vigilance."

:p

People follow the rules every day without being vigilant. The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example, your own favorite 'inadvertent drift' while one is driving the speed limit and not fiddling with something is another. Of course you will disagree, citing your mythical 'rules' versus the law, which will only prove that this is yet another of your loaded, meaningless poll.

I want to know which of your theories this poll is designed to prove before I answer!

I think what does it matter? Is this really an important question to ask?

People follow the rules every day without being vigilant. The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example, your own favorite 'inadvertent drift' while one is driving the speed limit and not fiddling with something is another. Of course you will disagree, citing your mythical 'rules' versus the law, which will only prove that this is yet another of your loaded, meaningless poll.
Proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT one example, because proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT following the rules! That's the point. Sure, you can follow some of the rules without being vigilant, but you can't follow the rules consistently without also being vigilant.

Similarly, drifting out of your lane into the shoulder or bike lane is also not following the rules of the road, and requires vigilance to consistently keep from doing (especially on an empty/quiet road).

I think what does it matter? Is this really an important question to ask?
It is a major theme in Robert's philosophy. You should read his book.

Did I call it right or what. :rolleyes:

Proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT one example, because proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT following the rules!

Specifically, which rules were disobeyed? Please cite links to them for us.

Did I call it right or what. :rolleyes:
No you did not, unless you are contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law, and that these are examples of HH's "mythical 'rules' versus the law".

So, are you contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law? If so, I suggest you review the law. If not, what was the point of your post?

No you did not, unless you are contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law, and that these are examples of HH's "mythical 'rules' versus the law".

So, are you contending that proceeding from a stop sign when it is not clear to do so safely, or drifting out of one's lane into the bike lane or shoulder, IS obeying the law? If so, I suggest you review the law. If not, what was the point of your post?

She obviously thought it was ok to proceed safely - she came to a complete stop and looked both ways twice, but didn't see anything. So please cite which rule or law was broken, what are you charging her with?

...
The soccer mom who stops for the stop sign, looks both ways twice, then proceeds to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is one example,

Proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle [after stopping for a stop sign] is NOT one example [of following the rules without being vigilant], because proceeding to run right into a cyclist/ped/vehicle is NOT following the rules!

Specifically, which rules were disobeyed? Please cite links to them for us.

:rolleyes:


21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21802.htm

Can you all envision HH googling his wittle heart out? :D

She obviously thought it was ok to proceed safely - she came to a complete stop and looked both ways twice, but didn't see anything. So please cite which rule or law was broken, what are you charging her with? Does the phrase failure to yield have any legal meaning to you?

Gotta go...

:rolleyes:


21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21802.htm


OK, so she maintains that she didn't see the other vehicle...and indeed you don't even know if perhaps the other vehicle didn't break the law and cause the accident themselves...so are you going to attempt to charge her with a violation...based on your limited knowledge of the circumstances and no investigation?
Or is the investigation is as rigged as this poll?

I don't the two are completely related.

For example, I followed some rules today, was vigilant, tried not to make mistakes, but I made mistakes, got chewed out for not being vigilant and had to discuss whether more rules are needed. One may follow the other, one may be related to the other, but the relationship is not equal or directly related.

Can you all envision HH googling his wittle heart out? :D :rolleyes:

Pulling the "just kidding" card again, Chip?

So you voted no (disagree with the OP) in the poll, but you don't have a serious argument to explain?

Now, I'm really outta here.

I think you can obey the rules without being vigilant.

Examples:
At a four-way stop you are supposed to stop, yield to the ones who have right of way, look both ways and go if it is clear.
Of course that is not verbatim but everyone will agree (hopefully) that what I have just said is true.
So I pull up to a stop sign, yield to the person who was their first, look both ways, and proceed thru the intersection since there is no one else stopped. BAM! I just get T-Boned by the guy speeding from my right who blew thru the sign. He was 100 feet or more from the intersection when I looked his way so by not being vigil I did not take into account that he was going way too fast and that he might run the sign.
If I were being vigilant, I would have seen him coming and thought "gee, this fella is screaming along and from the looks of it is not even paying attention". But I wasn't being vigil, I was just obeying the rules. I stopped, yeilded to others, and went thru the intersection when it appeard to be clear.

Of course that is just one example that has a very familiar outcome, if not a predictable one.

I don't the two are completely related.

For example, I followed some rules today, was vigilant, tried not to make mistakes, but I made mistakes, got chewed out for not being vigilant and had to discuss whether more rules are needed. One may follow the other, one may be related to the other, but the relationship is not equal or directly related.
I don't disagree.

But I don't think you can follow the rules consistently/reliably without also being vigilant. Do you?

Does the phrase failure to yield have any legal meaning to you?

Gotta go...

So you have convicted her without an investigation and knowing all the facts...nice. I said she stopped and looked both ways...why is she the one who failed to yield, Capn Kangaroo Court?

I think you can obey the rules without being vigilant.

Examples:
At a four-way stop you are supposed to stop, yield to th one who has right of way, look both ways and go if it is clear.
Of course that is not [i]verbatim[/b] but everyone will agree (hopefully) that what I have just said is true.
So I pull up to a stop sign, yield to the person who was their first, look both ways, and proceed thru the intersection since there is no one else stopped. BAM! I just get T-Boned by the guy speeding from my right who blew thru the sign. He was 100 feet or more from the intersection when I looked his way so by not being vigil I did not take into account that he was going way too fast and that he might run the sign.
If I were being vigilant, I would have seen him coming and thought "gee, this fella is screaming along and from the looks of it is not even paying attention". But I wasn't being vigil, I was just obeying the rules. I stopped, yeilded to others, and went thru the intersection when it appeard to be clear.

Of course that is just one example that has a very familiar outcome, if not a predictable one.
That just shows that simply following the rules is sometimes not enough, that you also have to be vigilant. No one disagrees with that.

:rolleyes:

Pulling the "just kidding" card again, Chip?

So you voted no (disagree with the OP) in the poll, but you don't have a serious argument to explain?

Now, I'm really outta here.

I've given you a serious example and you jumped to the conclusion that you wanted without knowing all the facts or even asking for all the facts. You defined the answer without seriously considering the example...your bad, not mine...I just let you be you.

That just shows that simply following the rules is sometimes not enough, that you also have to be vigilant. No one disagrees with that.

But the example was of someone following the rules, but not being vigilant, which you claim cannot happen:


All of these considerations combined convinces me that following the rules requires vigilance; that it is impossible to follow the rules (consistently) without being vigilant.

That just shows that simply following the rules is sometimes not enough, that you also have to be vigilant. No one disagrees with that.
I feel a person would be better off to be vigil while following the rules, of course.
But never the less, my small example does show that one who follows the rules is not always vigil.

[EDIT]
Of course I am assuming you are talking about the legal standard of ROTR and not Defensive Driving ROTR.

So you have convicted her without an investigation and knowing all the facts...nice. I said she stopped and looked both ways...why is she the one who failed to yield, Capn Kangaroo Court?

I gotta agree with HH on this one... and without looking up the laws. A motorist did just that to me and was indeed cited with "failing to yield right of way."

He stopped, looked both ways and then proceeded to leave the sign and pull out as I was crossing in the intersection. Technically I hit him, but since he failed to yield right of way at a posted stop, he got the ticket.

Now since I agreed with HH on this subtle point, doesn't mean I agree with whatever arguement he is trying to make here. Who knows where that is going... :rolleyes:

I feel a person would be better off to be vigil while following the rules, of course.
But never the less, my small example does show that one who follows the rules is not always vigil.

Exactly - following the rules is easy, being vigilant is not so easy. People follow the rules every day, but like with anything else that becomes routine, they are not very vigilant in doing so.

Exactly - following the rules is easy, being vigilant is not so easy. People follow the rules every day, but like with anything else that becomes routine, they are not very vigilant in doing so.
That's exactly how I feel...
you sexy hunk of man meat you :D

BTW: Love the new avatar, I was on a graphical browser the other day and saw it, gave this crosseyed cricket a good chuckle.

"Vigilance, obey, we are at war with vehiculariana, at peace with bikeulaand"
or somethin'

I gotta agree with HH on this one... and without looking up the laws. A motorist did just that to me and was indeed cited with "failing to yield right of way."

He stopped, looked both ways and then proceeded to leave the sign and pull out as I was crossing in the intersection. Technically I hit him, but since he failed to yield right of way at a posted stop, he got the ticket.

Now since I agreed with HH on this subtle point, doesn't mean I agree with whatever arguement he is trying to make here. Who knows where that is going... :rolleyes:

One thing you both missed though, Gene - I never said the person she hit had the ROW. I simply allowed HH to jump to the conclusion he already had made, because he was not vigilant in his consideration of the example - even though he did follow the rules of BF. ;)

HH, your assertion is so obviously false that I am surprised you are sticking to it even after thinking about it for a few weeks.

A quick glance at accident stats tells us, if we really needed numerical reassurance for something so obvious, how very wrong you are. In the majority of car-bike collisions suffered by experienced adult riders like those on this forum, the cyclist is in fact riding according to the rules at the time of the collision. No matter how many times I repeat this fact, it seems to pass over some folks like water over a duck. Do you think all these law-abiding victims were also vigilant victims? Of course not.

Examples of law-abiding, super-non-vigilant cycling are abundant if not infinite.

You're at a stop sign waiting to cross a busy street. A car is sitting at the stop sign across the street, with its left turn signal on. A gap appears in traffic. You are so very aware of the law in this case--you're going straight across, and the car is turning, so you have the ROW. You start across, so content in your lawfullness. But the car cranks a left and rams right into you. OUch, buddy! The driver was looking to his right the whole time looking for a gap, only glanced up briefly, and cranked his left without ever taking note of your existence. Because you were law-abiding but not vigilant, you were surprised by his sudden unlawfulness when you should have been ready for it.

You're cruising down a nice boulevard, taking the lane VC style. You're really proud of yourself for commanding that central lane-position in a law-abiding fashion. If there's anything you understand, it's your rights as a cyclist. You want to turn left ahead so you start 'negotiating' with traffic in the adjacent lane to begin the lane-changing process, signalling, looking back, alpha-dogging, what have you. You glance back once more and begin to move over and....SLAM! Waking up in the hospital later, you learn that you collided with a jaywalker who walked out right in front of you. Niether of you saw it coming.

You're cruising down a nice suburban street. Using proper VC lane positioning of course. Two soccer moms in bikinis are playing volleyball on a nearby lawn. You look back to the street just in time to eat the back end of a Honda Odyssey, the driver of which had launched her vehicle into the street in front of you. Lawful you were, but not vigilant.

You're cruising down a nice street in the city. Using proper assertive VC lane positioning of course. A car pulls up suddenly to a stop sign on your right. Driver seems jumpy. You begin to move over a little bit to the ---- Ker-CHUNK! Next thing you know, you're sitting in the street spitting out teeth. You hit a huge pothole that you didn't even notice.

This type of wreck -- cyclist lawful but not vigilant -- is not the slightest bit rare. It describes about half of all car-bike collisions, and a majority of collisions suffered by experienced adult riders. Commonplace. Not unusual. Okay? For your sake I hope you don't try to cling to your position here to the bitter end. The word 'untenable' does not begin to do it justice.

Robert

I really don't see why this argument is helpful. I mean, it's just like the whole VC argument. Vehicular Cyclists(TM) have less accidents than other cyclists. If they have accidents, it is because they weren't adhering to the principles of Vehicular Cycling(TM) at the time.

Same as...You have to be vigilant to obey the rules. If you had an accident you weren't vigilant so you weren't obeying the rules.

I believe they call these things tautologies.

What Robert said....
Some good examples here.
And your examples brings one thing to mind for me. It is the law abiding yet nonvigilant sidewalk cyclist that is the reason alot of us on here (myself included) like to tell others that cycling on the sidewalk is not *always* the best course of action and that the street/shoulder is safer.
No matter how law abiding a sidewalk cyclist is, almost all of the accidents we read about on here, and I'm sure you'd agree with me Helmet Head, are due to them not being vigilant. The accidents I refer to are the cyclists getting hit by cars backing out of driveways or not stopping AT the stop line or stop sign but rather rolling past them while looking left.

How dare you confuse the issue with common sense, Robert...we're gonna have to ban you from A&S.

I already know where HH is going with this...his position will be that, yes, of course one can be obeying the rules or the law and have something happen because they were not vigilant, but the fact that they were not vigilant means that they really weren't obeying the rules or law at all, because obeying the rules and the law requires vigilance. I believe he's trying to make the point that being aware is rule one...which I think we would all agree is a 'requirement' in any endeavor (it sure makes sex more fun), but as usual his method of trying to convey that point is lacking clarity.

So if I may restate HH's position for him, which he probably won't agree with, but oh well, I tried: Merely following the rules is not enough to keep one safe if one is not vigilant - aware of their surroundings and planning for Murphy.

Anybody have a problem with that simple statement?

I voted "Other" because I'm not clear on the definition of vigilance. I think there is a spectrum of awareness, with lots of points between "oblivious" and "hyper-vigilant", with regular "vigilance" being a portion of the spectrum towards the more aware end. But quite where, I don't know, and I didn't see defined. But then, I haven't been reading the threads reference in the OP, either.

I think HH has me on ignore. :(

You're cruising down a nice street in the city. Using proper assertive VC lane positioning of course. A car pulls up suddenly to a stop sign on your right. Driver seems jumpy. You begin to move over a little bit to the ---- Ker-CHUNK! Next thing you know, you're sitting in the street spitting out teeth. You hit a huge pothole that you didn't even notice

This would be a case of not following the rules of the road and also not being vigilant. The rules of the road state that an operator should always scan the road ahead for hazards. If you hit the pot hole or where unprepared to hit the pot hole then you did not follow that rule and where not vigilant.

There are a lot of rules to the road and following them all at all times takes vigilance.

This would be a case of not following the rules of the road and also not being vigilant. The rules of the road state that an operator should always scan the road ahead for hazards. If you hit the pot hole or where unprepared to hit the pot hole then you did not follow that rule and where not vigilant.

There are a lot of rules to the road and following them all at all times takes vigilance.

Do you happen to know which Maryland rule for vehicles states this? I too thought the same thing when reading his examples but could not find anything pertinent in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

Sometimes you cannot see the potholes because of shadows from overhanging branches. Does this mean you weren't vigilant if you hit one or underestimate its depth? Should you brace for impact with every shadow on the ground?

Do you happen to know which Maryland rule for vehicles states this? I too thought the same thing when reading his examples but could not find anything pertinent in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

It's not codified. It's part of driver's ed.

Should you brace for impact with every shadow on the ground?

I have done that plenty of times riding at night.

I have done that plenty of times riding at night.
You'd never survive your first Zoobomb. Inexperienced noob!

You'd never survive your first Zoobomb. Inexperienced noob!

If I did that I would use much better lights honey....I school those 'mo's any day

It's not codified. It's part of driver's ed.
Undestood, but never the less, Drivers Ed is not mandatory (I'm assuming you are talking about the class taught in highschool here), and if it is not a mandatory education then I personally wouldn't call it a rule, especially in the context of this thread, otherwise we could go ahead and use the information provided in the many "Defensive Driving" links. This thread *does* need more clarification on *which* rules the OP is talking about. Of course, I still don't think the common sense driving skills and techniques taught in non mandatory classes as rules, per-say.

If I did that I would use much better lights honey....I school those 'mo's any day
I seriously doubt it.

This would be a case of not following the rules of the road and also not being vigilant. The rules of the road state that an operator should always scan the road ahead for hazards. If you hit the pot hole or where unprepared to hit the pot hole then you did not follow that rule and where not vigilant.

Nonsense -- It is not against the law to overlook or hit potholes, or longitudinal cracks, or patches of gravel or ice, or any of the other surface hazards that cyclists must be on the lookout for that motorists don't have to think twice about. It's just another reason that cyclists need to stay vigilant that is above and beyond, and completely separate from, the traffic law.


There are a lot of rules to the road and following them all at all times takes vigilance.

Seems to me 'rules of the road' could be defined however one wishes, and that would make for a pretty ******** discussion, wouldn't it. "Staying vigilant is one of the 'rules of the road!' Anyone who crashes into anything has therefore violated the 'rules of the road.'" Bzzzzzt.

The rules of the road are the rules of the road. They may be somewhat different depending on what road you're on.

Robert

This would be a case of not following the rules of the road and also not being vigilant. The rules of the road state that an operator should always scan the road ahead for hazards. If you hit the pot hole or where unprepared to hit the pot hole then you did not follow that rule and where not vigilant.

There are a lot of rules to the road and following them all at all times takes vigilance.


The law does not require perfection. No one is going to see ALL obstacles 100% of the time or avoid all obstacles 100% of the time. What is required is reasonable care

You're missing the point. Galen is the perfect cyclist, everyone else simply aspires to be as good as Galen.

:roflmao:

I voted 'other' because I am confused about what is going on (I guess I have to be more vigilant :))

I think it's ulikely that if you are not paying the slightest bit of attention to what is going on around you, you will be unable to follow the rules of the road (missing signage, failing to yield right of way, etc).

But is 'vigilance' a rule of the road - not that I'm aware of. Thas said - I try to be as vigilant as possible.