Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Stripes II

Well, where to begin...

Now, let's talk about vehicular cycling and kids. What I was talking about in posts above had to do with unsupervised vehicular cycling by kids in a modern, urban auto-centric environment. That, in my estimation, could be a lethal combination, and that's what I see in the Beaverton/Portland area. I also do not see many kids riding bikes on the through streets here. Again, riding in neighborhood streets is a different situation. I have also seen some pretty awful examples of bicycles used by kids, both when ours were growing up, and now. Parents buy junk bicycles from department stores, and don't know how to put them together, or maintain them. Simple things, like inflating the tires, are not attended to. If you take a child, say ten to twelve years old, and put him or her (boys are probably worse than girls, LittleBigMan) on busy streets, there could be a very bad result. Even training in vehicular cycling rules and ways of getting around in these conditions could still have bad consequences for the child. At twelve to fourteen, the child is getting into adolescence, and may be better able to handle the roadways as a vehicular cyclist.

John

Here are your words: "What I was talking about in posts above had to do with unsupervised vehicular cycling by kids in a modern, urban auto-centric environment. That, in my estimation, could be a lethal combination, and that's what I see in the Beaverton/Portland area." So, you would rather have them cycling incompetently than competently according to the rules of the road? That's the thought transmitted when one reads your words. However, I rather think that you have never, or almost never, seen examples of kids in Beaverton/Portland area riding according to the vehicular rules of the road. Since that is probably so, your sentences are meaningless.

Here are your words: "What I was talking about in posts above had to do with unsupervised vehicular cycling by kids in a modern, urban auto-centric environment. That, in my estimation, could be a lethal combination, and that's what I see in the Beaverton/Portland area." So, you would rather have them cycling incompetently than competently according to the rules of the road? That's the thought transmitted when one reads your words. However, I rather think that you have never, or almost never, seen examples of kids in Beaverton/Portland area riding according to the vehicular rules of the road. Since that is probably so, your sentences are meaningless. (emphasis added)
No, I rarely even see kids around here cycling at all, incompetantly or vehicularly, as you say. You need to read more carefully.

John

Should I let a psychologist who is proud of influencing a young girl through the "significant emotional event" of stomping her bike with his cowboy boots influence me with his ideas? I'd say a man that thinks a building other than his own house "belongs to him" and gives him the ok to damage another's property in retaliation has more issues than a careless young female cyclist.

I kinda think you picked the wrong example, here, John. :(
LittleBigMan,

I used that as an example from one of Dr. Massey's films in the 1980s that he used, as an example of a "significant emotional event." But I think you are missing his message; check out the video clip and then report back on what you think. By the way, Dr. Massey was not proud of what he did, and said that he "completely lost it..." in that film. It was a statement about values, that he had fought for funding to get that building built, and it was a brand new building. To have that completely disrespected by the student was beyond him that day.

John

Well, where to begin...

Bike lanes, what to say about them to you? You've made up your mind, and I'm surely not going to convince you otherwise. My feeling is that they provide a means for kids to ride to an intersection and use a crosswalk to get across, even if unsupervised. I'm not sure I'd want a ten- to twelve-year-old trying a left turn vehicularly on some of the streets around here; in fact, I'm sure I would not want that at that age.

John F., I used to be a NAUI scuba instructor. In NAUI, we had a way of looking at things that we felt made a difference. If we would not want our own loved one taught something in a certain manner, we shouldn't be teaching it to others.


John

You praise bike lanes because they provide a means of walking across intersections on the crosswalks, and of making a pedestrian-style left turn? Any cyclist can do these, if he chooses; he doesn't need a bike lane for it. For that matter, you confess to walking your bike across some major intersections. Why walk your bike when riding it gets you across quicker? Have you any evidence that motorists preferentially hit people who are riding bicycles than people who are pushing their bicycles?

Now tell me this, what proportion of cyclists riding on bike-laned streets stop and walk across intersections? I haven't observed this behavior.

And you a NAUI instructor, too. I would have thought that the safety instruction that is built into NAUI instruction would convince you that doing the right thing is the best practice. By the way, my son and I, both qualified scuba divers, about 1964 visited one of my school friends, a Navy doctor, in his office in
Groton. Both my son and I knew the significance of the 400 foot diving certificate hanging on his wall. And my son has, for years, been a member of the diving search and rescue team for his area. So, both cycling in traffic, and in the water, we know the value of doing it right.

John F., I really wish you would read, carefully, my posts. I was talking about bike lanes providing kids that opportunity to make that type of crossing, rather than crossing a busy street in the vehicular manner you advocate. Around here, some of those are four-lanes of traffic, with a middle lane for turning, so five lanes. By the way, this is also one of the three alternatives advocated in the ODOT Bicycle Manual, the other two being a vehicular left turn, and riding through the intersection to get to the other side, then riding through on the green light the other direction. All three work, but vehicularly is much faster.

Concerning walking the bike across Cornell Road, that is simply my way of getting across where there is no ramp to do so. The city engineers around here would rather someone riding a bike on their bike path ride onto the sidewalk, ride down the sidewalk about a quarter of a mile to a crosswalk, then go across the crosswalk, ride back half a quarter mile to the bike path. I simply walk the bike across when the traffic wave has gone by to get across. I could ride, I guess, but with a recumbant, I'd rather not. If I was riding a mountain bike, than that would be a better option. But I like my recumbant, and will continue to do this. You kinda bunched several paragraphs into something it was not above. This was an example of when I was not riding vehicularly.

Concerning NAUI diving instruction, yes, they have that built in. I put together a bicycle course outline based upon the NAUI-style instruction format, and posted it in the Advocacy section about two years ago. You might be interested in it. So the Navy Doc had been to 400 feet? That's quite a feat, and he probably did it using Navy saturation diving techniques and mixed-gas, closed circuit scuba. That's not something I would advocate for the general diving public. If that was in 1964, perhaps it had something to do with their SeaLab operations at the time. If so, it was probably a chamber dive, as the SeaLab diving only got down to a little over 200 feet. SeaLab III was scheduled to dive deeper, but they had a fatality and abandoned the program. Here's a pretty good website of some of the interesting milestones for diving:

http://www.seasabres.com/Safty-education/Diving%20time%20line.htm

If you want to see some of my writings on diving, you can check here:

http://vintagescuba.proboards2.com/

I'm "SeaRat" over there, but also go by my real name.

You know, we really do have a lot in common, so I hope you don't mind if I do not follow your approach and be adversarial.

John

and when was that, mossy? back in the 1950's?

do you think anything has changed on the american road from the 1950's to the 21st century? anything different?

quixotic memories, I'd say. For one thing, cars today handle much better than they did in the 1950s. Contrary to popular belief, speeds are about the same. In fact, there was less congestion then, so average speeds of traffic were often higher.

:roflmao:

let mossy john anwser the question, head. you were not around in the 1950's.

Well, where to begin...

I relay this story, John F., to ask you what kind of a significant emotional event would allow you to change some of your long-held assumptions about bicycling, bike lanes, etc.? The other part of it is that you were raised in a certain area, and came to your values in a certain way, both as a person and as a bicyclist. Others were raised in a different environment, perhaps more pleasant than yours.

I say that because, just looking at your posts to me, you have called me “silly,” and my wife an “incompetent” bicyclist. You have said to others that they are “demonstrating their mental incompetence.” Does this really sound like someone who is trying to convince others of his ideas? Or rather does it sound like someone out to offend people? Step back and look at what you write about people, and see if it is really projecting what you wish to project as a set of ideas to a community of bicyclists. We are not necessarily your adversaries, but we are also not simply going to take ideas we feel are not complete and use them without doing our own evaluation. Much of what you hear here is because of how you approach us.
ohn

You, John Ratliff, ask: "[W]hat kind of a significant emotional event would allow you to change some of your long-held assumptions about bicycling, bike lanes, etc.?" The question is absurd. "Allow [me] to change my long-held assumptions about bicycling, bike lanes, etc." You evidently believe that some force is preventing my from changing what you consider to be my assumptions. And you base your question on some "significant emotional event", which is equally absurd. I operate on the basis of facts and reason, not assumptions, while what I see from your camp has few facts and strange reasoning.

Yes, I have called your ideas and advocacy silly, silly because they are not based on facts and reason but on some strange kind of reasoning that doesn't pass muster by reasonable intellectual standards. And, what you write about my ideas is, very frequently, false. Not because I do not write clearly, but because you choose to write your assumptions into my ideas.

It is always true that people evaluate concepts in accordance with their pre-existing view of the world. What I am writing here is that your view of cycling affairs is so misaligned with reality that your evaluations of cycling ideas end up being illogical.

You complain that my ideas are incomplete: "[B]ut we are also not simply going to take ideas we feel are not complete and use them without doing our own evaluation." Well, I have not noticed that you have been asking questions seeking information about matters that you feel I have not considered. I have been considering these matters seriously for more than thirty years, and I think that I have covered most of the issues.

.....absurd.....equally absurd......silly........doesn't pass muster by reasonable intellectual standards...........misaligned with reality.........illogical........incomplete........"

dude, you need some serious attitude adjustment. acerbic, pedantic, lost in his quixotic bitterness.

is Helemt Head mossy john's Sancho Panza?

Do you think you can list in your own words 2 or 3 of what you think are some of John Forester's "long-held assumptions about bicycling, bike lanes, etc." that you think he should consider changing? For each one, please specify the reasons that you do not accept the assumptions.
First, Helmet Head, I have already challenged one of John Forester's long-held assumptions concerning bicycle paths, on a different thread which you can look for if you wish. I have also challenged his words from his book on mirrors. Again, its up to you to look this up. That's two. Right now, I have final exams in biostatistics and radiological health, and so will be laying low for a couple of weeks. I've already spent much too much time on this. I would recommend that you listen to what Dr. Massey has to say above; it could be enlightening to you too.

John

PS--I have also challenged his assumptions on recumbant bicycles, so that's three. Now we are discussing bike lanes, which I feel have a place, and apparently John Forester does not. That's four. There is a propensity to "blame the cyclist in both you, Helmet Head, and John Forester, which is not totally true. That's five. There is much in his book that I like, but the discussion on mirrors...well, I've talked about that already. There is also the discussions I've presented here and on other threads about the concepts of time, distance and shielding for bicycling, which John F. apparently feels are irrelevant. And there is the discussion of highway fatalities, drunken, distracted and impared drivers, which John F. apparently feels is not relavent to bicycling safety as there is not much cyclists can do about it. Finally, there was the discussion of engineering controls verses administrative controls (bicyclist behavior, and vehicular cycling, is an administrative control, whereas roundabouts are an engineering control--one which John F. apparently agrees with--but in general he made fun of my discussion of engineering controls). If you want all the reasons I don't accept his assumptions, I suggest you do a search on my name and do some reading. If in a few weeks, you still need them, I'll work on it. John,

I've read all your posts. I don't know what you're talking about when you say you've challenged Forester's assumptions. I do believe you believe you've challenged his assumptions. I don't think you actually have, because I don't think you understand them well enough to challenge them. That was my point.

It's interesting that you mention mirrors, because that is an area where Mr. Forester's position has evolved (based on what I've seen him write on other forums as compared to the position stated in his book). But that's a peripheral issue, as are 'bents.

But the more interesting/controversial issue is bike lanes. Within the realm of bike lanes, what is one specific assumption that you challenge, and for what reasons? I'm not asking for a vague reference. For clarity, please complete these sentences:

One of John Forester's assumption about bike lanes is _____________________.
I know this is one of his assumptions because ________________________.
The reasons he accepts this assumption are _____________________.
The reasons I don't accept it are ___________________________.

In other words, show us that you're really thinking about these issues, including Mr. Forester's positions, rather than just claiming that you are.

Helmet Head,

Do your own homework. In two weeks, I'll see if I need to respond. Study time...

John

For one thing, cars today handle much better than they did in the 1950s. Contrary to popular belief, speeds are about the same. In fact, there was less congestion then, so average speeds of traffic were often higher.

I disagree that speeds were higher... all around the county I can show you speed limits that have been raised over the years.

A clear indicator of this trend is Mira Mesa Blvd... fading 45MPH paint on the street and new signs now show 50MPH.

Mirmar road used to be 45MPH. KV road used to be 45MPH. (of course back in the 50's, few of these roads even existed)

For clarity, please complete these sentences:

One of John Forester's assumption about bike lanes is _____________________.
I know this is one of his assumptions because ________________________.
The reasons he accepts this assumption are _____________________.
The reasons I don't accept it are ___________________________.

In other words, show us that you're really thinking about these issues, including Mr. Forester's positions, rather than just claiming that you are.
Helmet Head,

Do your own homework. In two weeks, I'll see if I need to respond. Study time...

John John,

You've had time to ramble on and on in generalities and make vague accusations. I'm asking for specifics from you in terms of what you're talking about. Only you can provide that. A lifetime of homework will certainly not uncover it in posts you've written up to this point.

If you really have an argument, it shouldn't take you more than 5 or 10 minutes to complete the above four sentences.

I disagree that speeds were higher... all around the county I can show you speed limits that have been raised over the years.

A clear indicator of this trend is Mira Mesa Blvd... fading 45MPH paint on the street and new signs now show 50MPH.

Mirmar road used to be 45MPH. KV road used to be 45MPH. (of course back in the 50's, few of these roads even existed)
And for decades, up until a few years ago, Torrey Pines Road was posted at 45 mph. Now it is 35 mph.

Certainly in some areas road conditions have improved such that speeds have naturally increased.
But per capita collisions are down, which means driving is generally safer today than it was 50 years ago.



Despite technological advances, the death toll of car accidents remains high: about 40,000 people die every year in the US. While this number increases annually in line with rising population and increased travel, the rate per capita and per vehicle miles travelled decreases. In 1996 the US had about 2 deaths per 10,000 motor vehicles, comparable to 1.9 in Germany, 2.6 in France, and 1.5 in the UK [4]. In 1998 there were 3,421 fatal accidents in the UK, the fewest since 1926 [5].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_safety

No, I rarely even see kids around here cycling at all, incompetantly or vehicularly, as you say. You need to read more carefully.

John

Oh, I understand. While you rarely ever see kids cycling, you speculate that if some kids cycled lawfully and competently according to the rules of the road, it would be extremely dangerous.

You need to read more carefully.
Oh, I understand. While you rarely ever see kids cycling, you speculate that if some kids cycled lawfully and competently according to the rules of the road, it would be extremely dangerous. To be clear, these are the words of Ratliff from which Forester's interpretation is the only reasonable meaning to be assumed: "What I was talking about in posts above had to do with unsupervised vehicular cycling by kids in a modern, urban auto-centric environment. That, in my estimation, could be a lethal combination, ..."

So "if some kids cycled lawfully and competently according to the rules of the road, it would be extremely dangerous" is the only reasonable interpretation, unless Ratliff has in mind some definition for "vehicular cycling" that is not, "cycling lawfully and competently according to the rules of the road", in which case he is arguing a strawman.

Forester needs to read more carefully? Methinks Ratliff needs to think more clearly about what is writing.

Thinking clearly is the first step in moving from having irrational faith in bike lane stripes to a rational understanding of the values of vehicular cycling and the importance of advocating it instead of stripes.

Originally posted by John Ratliff

First, Helmet Head, I have already challenged one of John Forester's long-held assumptions concerning bicycle paths, on a different thread which you can look for if you wish. I have also challenged his words from his book on mirrors. Again, its up to you to look this up. That's two. Right now, I have final exams in biostatistics and radiological health, and so will be laying low for a couple of weeks. I've already spent much too much time on this. I would recommend that you listen to what Dr. Massey has to say above; it could be enlightening to you too.

PS--I have also challenged his assumptions on recumbant bicycles, so that's three. Now we are discussing bike lanes, which I feel have a place, and apparently John Forester does not. That's four. There is a propensity to "blame the cyclist in both you, Helmet Head, and John Forester, which is not totally true. That's five. There is much in his book that I like, but the discussion on mirrors...well, I've talked about that already. There is also the discussions I've presented here and on other threads about the concepts of time, distance and shielding for bicycling, which John F. apparently feels are irrelevant. And there is the discussion of highway fatalities, drunken, distracted and impared drivers, which John F. apparently feels is not relavent to bicycling safety as there is not much cyclists can do about it. Finally, there was the discussion of engineering controls verses administrative controls (bicyclist behavior, and vehicular cycling, is an administrative control, whereas roundabouts are an engineering control--one which John F. apparently agrees with--but in general he made fun of my discussion of engineering controls). If you want all the reasons I don't accept his assumptions, I suggest you do a search on my name and do some reading. If in a few weeks, you still need them, I'll work on it.
=================

J Ratliff's challenges to Forester's views:
1: Bike paths
We've had a lot of that. I say that some paths are useful for transportation, some aren't, and some are downright dangerous. What's the challenge about?
2: Mirrors
I say that the cyclist who carries a mirror is most unlikely to be looking at the motorist who will hit him from behind at the time that the motorist's action becomes evident, and sufficiently early for the cyclist to swerve out of the motorist's way. What's the challenge about that?
3: Recumbent bicycles
I don't recall making any traffic assumptions about recumbent bicycles. What's the challenge about that?
4: Bike lanes
We've all had a lot about this, too. It appears to me that Ratliff's challenges, while being challenges, are not based on facts and reason.
5: Bike lane stripes shielding cyclists
Debatable. As I reported, the latest series of studies regarding this showed that motorists overtake cyclist more closely when there is a stripe than when there is not stripe.
6: Number of traffic accidents in the USA
As I said, cyclists have better things to do than to debate this, which is of interest to all the public.
7:Administrative vs engineered controls
My point is that motorists, who have many engineered controls that work, still have to rely on the rules of the road. For the same reason, cyclists have to rely on the same rules of the road. That Ratliff appears astonished that I like good roundabouts, because he thinks that I don't approve of engineered controls, is just absurd. For nothing else, I have since my youth advocated (even as city council meetings) stop signs as a means of protecting both motorists and cyclists at roads that naturally attract fast traffic. Or, more nearly, allow fast traffic on the streets for which it is suitable. What's the challenge for my position?

I suspect that most of Ratliff's challenges have no substance, only a substance that he imagines.

2: Mirrors
I say that the cyclist who carries a mirror is most unlikely to be looking at the motorist who will hit him from behind at the time that the motorist's action becomes evident, and sufficiently early for the cyclist to swerve out of the motorist's way. What's the challenge about that?
Oh, there is something to challenge about that.
I believe part of good situational awareness for any driver is to know what is going on at the sides and behind him as well as what's in front, though what's in front is clearly more important. What's to challenge about that?
I think knowing what's at the sides and what's behind is, all other factors held equal, more important for the driver of the slow vehicle than the driver of the "keeps up with flow" vehicle. I believe this because in general the situation behind and at the sides is changing more often for the driver of the slow vehicle than the driver of the "flow" vehicle. What's to challenge about that?
Many years ago I was taught in driver training to check my guages and my mirrors every few seconds. Again, it's all about situational awareness, and keeping your situational awareness freshly up-to-date. There are no "vehicle wellness" guages to check on a bike, unless you're wearing a heart monitor, so that is a bit moot, but the mirror stuff is not. Again, especially considering that a bicyclist must often act according to the rules for drivers of slow moving vehicles.
By checking the mirror periodically and habitually, it is quite easy to develop a good instinct for being able to predict how soon the next car will be approaching (note that a fraction-of-a-second mirror glance every few seconds leaves the bulk of the driver's attention to what's most important: looking ahead).
My practice is to ride left ("centerish" - between the left and right tracks) even in wide lanes during significantly long gaps in traffic, regularly monitoring the mirror while riding there. When I see a car approaching, I "sense" about how long I have, in seconds, before I need to yield (assuming it safe and reasonable to do so, which it usually is in a wide lane). What almost always happens is the motorist will noticably slow a tad (while he is still quite a few seconds back), and/or adjust laterally. The change in speed can sometimes not only be seen, but noticed in terms of pitch change in the tire/engine noise of the approaching vehicle. All this makes it less likely for the motorist to be unaware of my presence, and, therefore less likely for him to inadvertently drift into me (an albeit very unlikely possibility, but not zero), while at the same putting me at a more advantageous lane position (further left) more often to deal with the more likely threats in front of me. By being further left, I'm already properly destination positioned for any intersection I encounter, no matter how minor, and generally have better sightlines, buffer space and conspicuity than I would if riding further right.
In any case, I'm aware of the situation of faster traffic approaching from behind, and certainly capable of knowing when the critical moment is, and have a much better sense of whether traffic from behind is aware of my presence, and a much better chance to take evasive action if they are not and drift toward me, than is a cyclist who is not paying any attention to the rear with a mirror.

And for decades, up until a few years ago, Torrey Pines Road was posted at 45 mph. Now it is 35 mph.

Certainly in some areas road conditions have improved such that speeds have naturally increased.
But per capita collisions are down, which means driving is generally safer today than it was 50 years ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_safety

What has improved? Roads, driving or the cars themselves... since the '50s everything from seat belts to collapsable steering columns to air bags have been introduced into cars to protect the occupants. Have the rates of actual accidents decreased? Looking at death rates only, again, skews the stats. (much like bike accident stats)

And road improvement? There were no road improvements made to Mira Mesa road to up the speed limits by 5MPH. So what improved there... or are the motorists just driving with poor habits and faster?

And regarding lowering speeds... yeah, certain areas have become enlightened... Coronado now has a posted speed of 25MPH for most of the island (speed does increase on the strand). La Jolla Blvd is now "calmed" thanks to traffic circles... Yet boulevards throughout the city are now up to 50 MPH... near freeway speeds.

As for the wiki entry... you need to go back and re-read it... It says nothing about a decrease in per capita collisions... only deaths.
Despite technological advances, the death toll of car accidents remains high: about 40,000 people die every year in the US. While this number increases annually in line with rising population and increased travel, the rate per capita and per vehicle miles travelled decreases. In 1996 the US had about 2 deaths per 10,000 motor vehicles, comparable to 1.9 in Germany, 2.6 in France, and 1.5 in the UK [4]. In 1998 there were 3,421 fatal accidents in the UK, the fewest since 1926 [5].

A much higher number of accidents result in permanent disability.


Focusing only on deaths skews the picture... sure, more people may not die, but accidents are occuring none the less... and now folks are just maimed. :eek:

Focusing only on deaths skews the picture... sure, more people may not die, but accidents are occuring none the less... and now folks are just maimed. :eek:
There is no evidence that the accident-per-capita rate is any higher either.

Oh, there is something to challenge about that.

In any case, I'm aware of the situation of faster traffic approaching from behind, and certainly capable of knowing when the critical moment is, and have a much better sense of whether traffic from behind is aware of my presence, and a much better chance to take evasive action if they are not and drift toward me, than is a cyclist who is not paying any attention to the rear with a mirror.

I have never objected to the use of a mirror for convenience. The only claim that I have challenged is that using a mirror is an effective way to significantly reduce the probability of being hit from behind. I think that the proportion of time a cyclist would be looking behind is insignificant considering the very short time-span in which it is possible to determine whether a car approaching from behind will hit you or steer around you. In short, what I object to is the excessive claim of greatly improved safety from this cause.

By the way, John, my friend from prep school became the doctor associated with the Navy's deep diving project. About two years ago, this being a Navy town, I met a retired Navy diver, and in the process of swapping diving stories I mentioned Paul Lineaweaver. "Oh, you know Doc Lineaweaver? When he was looking after us he was always with us if there was any possibility of trouble, and we had no trouble when he was around." Great respect for Paul.

John F., I really wish you would read, carefully, my posts. I was talking about bike lanes providing kids that opportunity to make that type of crossing, rather than crossing a busy street in the vehicular manner you advocate. Around here, some of those are four-lanes of traffic, with a middle lane for turning, so five lanes. By the way, this is also one of the three alternatives advocated in the ODOT Bicycle Manual, the other two being a vehicular left turn, and riding through the intersection to get to the other side, then riding through on the green light the other direction. All three work, but vehicularly is much faster.

Concerning walking the bike across Cornell Road, that is simply my way of getting across where there is no ramp to do so. The city engineers around here would rather someone riding a bike on their bike path ride onto the sidewalk, ride down the sidewalk about a quarter of a mile to a crosswalk, then go across the crosswalk, ride back half a quarter mile to the bike path. I simply walk the bike across when the traffic wave has gone by to get across. I could ride, I guess, but with a recumbant, I'd rather not. If I was riding a mountain bike, than that would be a better option. But I like my recumbant, and will continue to do this. You kinda bunched several paragraphs into something it was not above. This was an example of when I was not riding vehicularly.

Concerning NAUI diving instruction, yes, they have that built in. I put together a bicycle course outline based upon the NAUI-style instruction format, and posted it in the Advocacy section about two years ago. You might be interested in it. So the Navy Doc had been to 400 feet? That's quite a feat, and he probably did it using Navy saturation diving techniques and mixed-gas, closed circuit scuba. That's not something I would advocate for the general diving public. If that was in 1964, perhaps it had something to do with their SeaLab operations at the time. If so, it was probably a chamber dive, as the SeaLab diving only got down to a little over 200 feet. SeaLab III was scheduled to dive deeper, but they had a fatality and abandoned the program. Here's a pretty good website of some of the interesting milestones for diving:

http://www.seasabres.com/Safty-education/Diving%20time%20line.htm

If you want to see some of my writings on diving, you can check here:

http://vintagescuba.proboards2.com/

I'm "SeaRat" over there, but also go by my real name.

You know, we really do have a lot in common, so I hope you don't mind if I do not follow your approach and be adversarial.

John


John R., I understand the choice of crossing a street with a recumbent when you wish to descend the curb on entering the roadway and climbing the curb on leaving the roadway. That has nothing to do with danger, just convenience.

However, I fail to see that bike lanes make walking across intersections safer, or make pedestrian-style left turns safer. There's just no connection.

There is no evidence that the accident-per-capita rate is any higher either.

There is no evidence that it is lower. Which is what you were alluding to.

Hard to find data on auto accidents... most stats deal only with death rates.

Oh, there is something to challenge about that.

1. In any case, I'm aware of the situation of faster traffic approaching from behind, and certainly capable of knowing when the critical moment is, and have a much better sense of whether traffic from behind is aware of my presence, and a much better chance to take evasive action if they are not and drift toward me, than is a cyclist who is not paying any attention to the rear with a mirror.
I have never objected to the use of a mirror for convenience. The only claim that I have challenged is that using a mirror is an effective way to significantly reduce the probability of being hit from behind. I think that the proportion of time a cyclist would be looking behind is insignificant considering the very short time-span in which it is possible to determine whether a car approaching from behind will hit you or steer around you. In short, what I object to is the excessive claim of greatly improved safety from this cause. Let's say you buy no Lottery tickets, and I buy one. Would you agree that I have much greater chance of winning the Lottery than you do, even though my absolute chance of winning the Lottery is still extremely low? This is because the "much greater chance" comparison is relative, not absolute, and we're comparing to someone who has a zero chance. Similarly, I claim that the cyclist who uses a mirror to establish and maintain situational awareness to the rear has a much greater chance of avoiding a hit-from-behind than does a cyclist who ignores the rear.

The other thing is that if you accept the premise that many if not most hits-from-behind where the cyclist is not at fault (didn't swerve) happen something like this:

Driver chooses to attend to a distraction because the road ahead appears clear (does not notice cyclist, or finds his out-of-the-way presence to be irrelevant).
Drivers attends to distraction.
Driver drifts right.
Driver hits cyclist.
Then the mirror-user has the following significant advantages over the non-mirror-user.

Rearward situational awareness maintained by periodic mirror glances make it much easier for a cyclist to use and maintain a "default" centerish position, which makes him more conspicuous and less likely to be overlooked or deemed "irrelevant" in the first place. This alone can cause the driver contemplating to attend to a distraction (a) to delay doing so until after he passes the cyclist, thus precluding the entire chain of events altogether.
The same rearward situational awareness can be used to determine which drivers have noticed the cyclist up ahead, since most will slow down and/or adjust laterally long before they reach the cyclist. This makes it possible for the cyclist to distinguish the very rare distracted potential drifter (no sign of noticing cyclist, possibly drifting already) from the much more common almost-surely-noticed-the-cyclist motorist, and to take appropriate precautions accordingly, long before it's too late.
But, again, I think the most significant safety gains that come from mirror use are from making it much more practical to use the safer more centerish lane position (which is consistent with "speed positioning" rules when faster same direction traffic is not present) much more often.

Let's say you buy no Lottery tickets, and I buy one. Would you agree that I have much greater chance of winning the Lottery than you do, even though my absolute chance of winning the Lottery is still extremely low? This is because the "much greater chance" comparison is relative, not absolute, and we're comparing to someone who has a zero chance. Similarly, I claim that the cyclist who uses a mirror to establish and maintain situational awareness to the rear has a much greater chance of avoiding a hit-from-behind than does a cyclist who ignores the rear.

The other thing is that if you accept the premise that many if not most hits-from-behind where the cyclist is not at fault (didn't swerve) happen something like this:

Driver chooses to attend to a distraction because the road ahead appears clear (does not notice cyclist, or finds his out-of-the-way presence to be irrelevant).
Drivers attends to distraction.
Driver drifts right.
Driver hits cyclist.
Then the mirror-user has the following significant advantages over the non-mirror-user.

Rearward situational awareness maintained by periodic mirror glances make it much easier for a cyclist to use and maintain a "default" centerish position, which makes him more conspicuous and less likely to be overlooked or deemed "irrelevant" in the first place. This alone can cause the driver contemplating to attend to a distraction (a) to delay doing so until after he passes the cyclist, thus precluding the entire chain of events altogether.
The same rearward situational awareness can be used to determine which drivers have noticed the cyclist up ahead, since most will slow down and/or adjust laterally long before they reach the cyclist. This makes it possible for the cyclist to distinguish the very rare distracted potential drifter (no sign of noticing cyclist, possibly drifting already) from the much more common almost-surely-noticed-the-cyclist motorist, and to take appropriate precautions accordingly, long before it's too late.
But, again, I think the most significant safety gains that come from mirror use are from making it much more practical to use the safer more centerish lane position (which is consistent with "speed positioning" rules when faster same direction traffic is not present) much more often.

I got along for years without using a mirror. I use one now because my neck joints have become stiff and painful, so that I can get a few looks behind before I really need to turn my head. I still think that the probability is extremely small that one will be able to distinguish the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past.

I got along for years without using a mirror. I use one now because my neck joints have become stiff and painful, so that I can get a few looks behind before I really need to turn my head. I still think that the probability is extremely small that one will be able to distinguish the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past.

John, it has nothing to do with determining "the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past," and everything to do with finding a gap in fast moving traffic.

I find a mirror quite handy when I am merging with 45MPH traffic, and need to find a gap in that traffic while I am also keeping an eye on the road ahead. When I spot a suitable gap, I can then turn my head to confirm the gap... and offer a subtle signal that I am moving to the left. If I can, I will then also offer a proper hand signal. Then I will make my move. In dense, fast traffic, the mirror makes all the difference in the world.

Watching for the motorist "that may hit you" is impossible.

I got along for years without using a mirror. I use one now because my neck joints have become stiff and painful, so that I can get a few looks behind before I really need to turn my head. I still think that the probability is extremely small that one will be able to distinguish the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past.
First, we agree that the probability that any one given cyclist will ever be hit from behind is certainly very small. Compared to the probabilities of harm coming from ahead, it's fine to ignore it. Never-the-less, the probability is not zero, and if a practice can reduce that non-zero probability to something significantly closer to zero while helping with improving one's safety with regard to hazards up ahead too, why not adopt it?

I agree that if you wait to try to determine whether a given driver is going to steer into you or miss you until the point where he is just a second or two back, then the probability is extremely small that one will be able to distinguish the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past. But that's not at all what I'm suggesting.

It's all about "reading" traffic behind you long before they've reached you, and, in particular, distinguishing the potentially distracted ones from the ones who have noticed you.

Of course, the whole thing depends on the assumption that the guy that you have confirmed has noticed you, will not steer into you, but I think that's a reasonable assumption.

John, it has nothing to do with determining "the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past," and everything to do with finding a gap in fast moving traffic.

I find a mirror quite handy when I am merging with 45MPH traffic, and need to find a gap in that traffic while I am also keeping an eye on the road ahead. When I spot a suitable gap, I can then turn my head to confirm the gap... and offer a subtle signal that I am moving to the left. If I can, I will then also offer a proper hand signal. Then I will make my move. In dense, fast traffic, the mirror makes all the difference in the world.
That's the convenience factor that he referred to is, and he's fine with it.


Watching for the motorist "that may hit you" is impossible.
Certainly if you're thinking of a line of traffic passing you by, and the possibility that anyone in that line might suddenly drift into you out of the line, yes, that's impossible to detect in time.

Of course, that's not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the situation where there is no other same direction traffic at the moment, and someone is coming. I think you can do a lot to determine if that particular driver has noticed you. Further, I think a driver in that situation is about the only kind of driver who will drift and hit a cyclist, so that's where the focus needs to be, if that's what you're looking for.

That's the convenience factor that he referred to is, and he's fine with it.


Certainly if you're thinking of a line of traffic passing you by, and the possibility that anyone in that line might suddenly drift into you out of the line, yes, that's impossible to detect in time.

Of course, that's not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the situation where there is no other same direction traffic at the moment, and someone is coming. I think you can do a lot to determine if that particular driver has noticed you. Further, I think a driver in that situation is about the only kind of driver who will drift and hit a cyclist, so that's where the focus needs to be, if that's what you're looking for.

I still don't buy your latter use, honestly. I toured for years and did not have a mirror most of the time then... and even now when I am out on quiet roads where those long gaps do exist... I can't determine enough about an approaching motorist from any distance with a mirror to make any difference. Usually I hear them long before I might "in a glance" notice them... and I certainly cannot determine anything such as "did they see me" for any perceivable distance... especially when they are moving over 50MPH.

John, it has nothing to do with determining "the motorist who will hit you from behind from the motorist who will steer past," and everything to do with finding a gap in fast moving traffic.

I find a mirror quite handy when I am merging with 45MPH traffic, and need to find a gap in that traffic while I am also keeping an eye on the road ahead. When I spot a suitable gap, I can then turn my head to confirm the gap... and offer a subtle signal that I am moving to the left. If I can, I will then also offer a proper hand signal. Then I will make my move. In dense, fast traffic, the mirror makes all the difference in the world.

Watching for the motorist "that may hit you" is impossible.

You agree with my point. I have never opposed using a mirror for convenience, and, as I wrote, I now use one because my neck is a bit painful.

I still don't buy your latter use, honestly. I toured for years and did not have a mirror most of the time then... and even now when I am out on quiet roads where those long gaps do exist... I can't determine enough about an approaching motorist from any distance with a mirror to make any difference. Usually I hear them long before I might "in a glance" notice them... and I certainly cannot determine anything such as "did they see me" for any perceivable distance... especially when they are moving over 50MPH.
I certainly agree that if I'm riding in the margins, I can't tell.

Try riding in the center of the lane and see if you can tell whether they do anything that tells you if they noticed you or not.

For example, picture the climb out of La Jolla on Torrey Pines Road. After the fire station, there is a straight part, with onstreet parking, then a curve to the left (at Pottery Canyon), then another long straight stretch. On that second long straight stretch I am usually out of the bike lane (even the nice new one) and out in the middle of the lane. I could be nearing the top of that straight stretch (but before it starts to curve right around the big sweeping turn to the right through the eucalyptus grove) and see motorists still a long way back, perhaps 10 or 15 seconds (at 50+ mph). From that far back, if I'm in the middle of the right lane, they will often change lanes. Now, if there is a dense pack coming, that doesn't matter much, because the next guy is still coming. But still, I maintain course and wait until he's about 5 seconds back, and noticably slowing a bit, before I signal right and merge right into the bike lane.

Using this technique, I find I can almost always tell if they noticed me or not before it's time to move aside.

I can absolutely tell using glances in mirror is fsdt has noticed me.
Maybe its more important in faster denser multilane traffic vs. rural where one can hear better.
Al