Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Why do you agree/disagree with Forester?

Are you saying that even when a cyclist has the proper lane position that they must keep looking back? That sound a little like cyclist-inferiority to me.
Sounds like a good way to run into something you didn't see because you weren't looking were you were going.

I will give you that there is a huge gap between this video and a Road I course but a Road I course is a lot longer then 15 minutes so naturally some detail is going to be left out. Anyway my point is not that this is an ideal safety video but it is trying to make a point of the same road, same rules. I do not see the “cyclist-inferiority” that you allude to. I don’t see any hint that the roads are just for cars, so cyclists stay out of the way. All I am seeing is an admonishment to cyclists if you follow the same rules as motorists and act like a motorist you’ll be ok, which does not ring any inferiority bells with me. Ok fine, there is a serious disconnect between a safety infraction and realistic consequences but I attribute that to the “humor” the video is trying to portray.

Ok to nit pick a bit, on the left turn it looks to me as if the cyclist is taking the lane on a two way road (no center stripe) and then signals for the turn. Are you saying that even when a cyclist has the proper lane position that they must keep looking back? That sound a little like cyclist-inferiority to me.

You don't see what is there because you are not familiar with this kind of material. As a member of the California State Bicycle Education Committee I had reviewed probably a dozen bike safety films. And, don't forget, I have produced two such films, Bicycling Safely on the Road and The Effective Cycling Video. It is correct that OGF does not contain specific instruction to stay at the side of the road; I suggest that one good reason for that is that it could not do so within the plot of the film. But that's nothing like the whole story.

Consider the actions of the traffic-law experts when deciding to discriminate against cyclists. They knew that they could not ethically require cyclists to make movements contrary to those of other drivers, which would obviously cause collisions. So they simply prohibited cyclists from using most of the width of the roadway, which did not obviously cause collisions. And the excuse for this that was advanced by the motoring organizations and by the bike-safety people was that bicycle riders were not capable of obeying all the rules of the road. So the instruction became that subset of the rules of the road that bicycle riders were supposed to be capable of obeying, a subset that was based on never having to use judgment because judging traffic was something that bicycle riders were thought not capable of doing. That is, stop at stop signs, but never any instruction as to what to do next. Signal for turns, but never any instruction about looking behind before moving laterally, as if the act of signaling seized the right of way from other drivers. Stay at the edge of the roadway, with never any instruction about how or when to leave it.

I suppose that it will surprise you to know that, as a result of my insistence on looking and yielding before moving laterally, one of the governmental highway safety agencies let a contract to determine whether or not cyclists could do this. I suppose, from memory, that was about 1980. This is the attitude toward bicycle riders that existed in the highway establishment at the time. That's what I see in the film One Got Fat.

John, the most significant difference between bicyclists and motorists is their relative speed, so bikes are treated as slow moving vehicles. Other, faster two-wheeled vehicles - scooters and motorbikes - are capable of matching the speed of motorists, so they are given more parity. Bike lanes on high-speed arterials simply help segregate traffic by relative speed, and both bicyclists and motorists appreciate it. It's really as simple as that.

Depending on specifics, on a road posted at 45mph, going around a bend at 45mph with limited sightlines is not neccessarily lawful.


I think that should be stated more correctly that it is the responsibility of DOT to post a safe speed for the road or curve over the responsibility of the motorist IMHO.

One issue I have around here is that motorists have the same complaint as Diane’s on 35mph roads but have no issue coming around a corner and finding a 6 foot wide vehicle doing 0mph (making a left turn.)

I think that should be stated more correctly that it is the responsibility of DOT to post a safe speed for the road or curve over the responsibility of the motorist IMHO.

One issue I have around here is that motorists have the same complaint as Diane’s on 35mph roads but have no issue coming around a corner and finding a 6 foot wide vehicle doing 0mph (making a left turn.)

The standard for posting curve and speed warnings is that such signs should be posted if the character if the road changes suddenly. The obvious example is a straight road with an unexpected curve that requires speed lower than the posted limit. On the other hand, a road that has many frequent curves may also be posted, or have an assumed speed limit, higher than that suitable for the curves, but if the curves are frequent then it is assumed that the driver understands this and selects his speed for each curve.

You don't see what is there because you are not familiar with this kind of material.
John, this borders on a personal attack, you really did not need that sentence.


You don't see what is there because you are not familiar with this kind of material. As a member of the California State Bicycle Education Committee I had reviewed probably a dozen bike safety films. And, don't forget, I have produced two such films, Bicycling Safely on the Road and The Effective Cycling Video. It is correct that OGF does not contain specific instruction to stay at the side of the road; I suggest that one good reason for that is that it could not do so within the plot of the film. But that's nothing like the whole story.

Consider the actions of the traffic-law experts when deciding to discriminate against cyclists. They knew that they could not ethically require cyclists to make movements contrary to those of other drivers, which would obviously cause collisions. So they simply prohibited cyclists from using most of the width of the roadway, which did not obviously cause collisions. And the excuse for this that was advanced by the motoring organizations and by the bike-safety people was that bicycle riders were not capable of obeying all the rules of the road. So the instruction became that subset of the rules of the road that bicycle riders were supposed to be capable of obeying, a subset that was based on never having to use judgment because judging traffic was something that bicycle riders were thought not capable of doing. That is, stop at stop signs, but never any instruction as to what to do next. Signal for turns, but never any instruction about looking behind before moving laterally, as if the act of signaling seized the right of way from other drivers. Stay at the edge of the roadway, with never any instruction about how or when to leave it.

I suppose that it will surprise you to know that, as a result of my insistence on looking and yielding before moving laterally, one of the governmental highway safety agencies let a contract to determine whether or not cyclists could do this. I suppose, from memory, that was about 1980. This is the attitude toward bicycle riders that existed in the highway establishment at the time. That's what I see in the film One Got Fat.

I’ll agree a lot more needs to go into all safety videos and they all leave something of significance out and I challenge you to find one video that does not leave anything out.

As to why someone left something out of a video that is anyone’s guess. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. But if we are allowed to accuse someone of something because of something they did not say that really opens up infinite possibilities of accusations.

Sure cyclist should look back before changing lateral positions on the roadway but your original complaint about the video was that the cyclists did not look back before making a left turn from the center of a lane. I personally think that was an unfair criticism unless you are assuming the cyclists was riding non-VC to the far right and therefore should be instructed on how to ride VC from a non VC lane position. That is essentially a contradiction in principles and you are failing to get across a coherent message and a valid point.

So what you are saying is that there is noting included in the video that supports your conclusion.

John, the most significant difference between bicyclists and motorists is their relative speed, so bikes are treated as slow moving vehicles. Other, faster two-wheeled vehicles - scooters and motorbikes - are capable of matching the speed of motorists, so they are given more parity. Bike lanes on high-speed arterials simply help segregate traffic by relative speed, and both bicyclists and motorists appreciate it. It's really as simple as that. Agree, except for the intersection approaches with straight-or-right outside lanes (including midblock intersections with driveways, alleys and commercial entrances, as well intersections with streets without RTOLs) where bike lanes guide through bicycle traffic to travel to the right of right-turning motor traffic, and outside of the space (main traffic lanes) where other drivers (like oncoming left-turners intending to turn left across the cyclist's path) tend to be paying most of their attention most of the time.

While there is some truth to the fact that bicyclists, like motorcyclists, tend to be overlooked more often than, say, fire trucks, I believe much of the "I didn't even see you/him/her" phenomena can be attributed not to the cyclist's lack of visual conspicuity due to size differences, but lack of cognitive conspicuity due to roadway positioning: choosing to not ride where most drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time. And bike lanes teach bicyclists that that's where they are supposed to ride, whether faster same direction traffic is present or not.

I can't understand Forester, myself. But that's just because he doesn't make any freakin' sense! Yeah, well, much of what Einstein said doesn't make any freakin' sense to me either, and that's why I don't understand it. But I don't conclude from that that what he says doesn't make any freakin' sense, period.

There are plenty of people who understand what Forester is saying, whether they agree with him or not ("Listening to Bike lanes" by Jeffrey Hiles (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/contents.html) is a particularly salient example of a Forester critic who understands what he says).

If I can't understand someone, and nobody else can't either, then I might conclude that what he is saying doesn't make sense, period. But that is certainly not the case with Forester's writings.

[...]
While there is some truth to the fact that bicyclists, like motorcyclists, tend to be overlooked more often than, say, fire trucks, I believe much of the "I didn't even see you/him/her" phenomena can be attributed not to the cyclist's lack of visual conspicuity due to size differences, but lack of cognitive conspicuity due to roadway positioning: choosing to not ride where most drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time....

That is classic VC-ist propaganda, it looks good on paper, it's seductive, it would be great if it were true, but in my experience it doesn't hold water. I've been overlooked in every road position imaginable over the years and find that rider speed is a much more important factor than position. That is, the faster you are riding, the less likely you are to be noticed by crossing traffic, pedestrians, people pulling out of parking spaces, etc. A fast-moving cyclist eight feet to the left of the bike lane is less likely to be noticed than a slow-mover in the bike lane, ime.

Road position is not the magic bullet of cyclist visibility. I advise people to forget entirely about using road position to maximize visibility. It's a fool's game. It's fundamentally unreliable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ride left, centrally, etc. But we should do it for the right reasons: to maximize space to inevitable right-side intruders and maximize our own ability to see it coming, when it does, which it will. This will also create the best possible sight lines for others ('maximize visibility') without filling our heads with dangerous notions of how 'visible' we are to those motorists.

Robert

That is classic VC-ist propaganda, it looks good on paper, it's seductive, it would be great if it were true, but in my experience it doesn't hold water. I've been overlooked in every road position imaginable over the years and find that rider speed is a much more important factor than position. That is, the faster you are riding, the less likely you are to be noticed by crossing traffic, pedestrians, people pulling out of parking spaces, etc. A fast-moving cyclist eight feet to the left of the bike lane is less likely to be noticed than a slow-mover in the bike lane, ime.

Road position is not the magic bullet of cyclist visibility. I advise people to forget entirely about using road position to maximize visibility. It's a fool's game. It's fundamentally unreliable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ride left, centrally, etc. But we should do it for the right reasons: to maximize space to inevitable right-side intruders and maximize our own ability to see it coming, when it does, which it will. This will also create the best possible sight lines for others ('maximize visibility') without filling our heads with dangerous notions of how 'visible' we are to those motorists.

Robert By your logic, since motorcyclists are significantly faster than bicyclists, motorcyclists should be overlooked significantly more often, per hundred miles traveled, than bicyclists. Do you believe that to be the case?

EDIT: I agree that, all other factors held equal, a faster (motor- or bi-) cyclist is more likely to be overlooked than a slower cyclist. But I also think that a motorcyclist is safer in the middle of the traffic lane where traffic is expected to be than in the road margin, where traffic is generally less expected, whether he is traveling 25, 45 or 15, or even 8 mph, and so is a bicyclist, for the exact same reasons.

John, this borders on a personal attack, you really did not need that sentence.



I’ll agree a lot more needs to go into all safety videos and they all leave something of significance out and I challenge you to find one video that does not leave anything out.

As to why someone left something out of a video that is anyone’s guess. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. But if we are allowed to accuse someone of something because of something they did not say that really opens up infinite possibilities of accusations.

Sure cyclist should look back before changing lateral positions on the roadway but your original complaint about the video was that the cyclists did not look back before making a left turn from the center of a lane. I personally think that was an unfair criticism unless you are assuming the cyclists was riding non-VC to the far right and therefore should be instructed on how to ride VC from a non VC lane position. That is essentially a contradiction in principles and you are failing to get across a coherent message and a valid point.

So what you are saying is that there is noting included in the video that supports your conclusion.

Well, how many "bike-safety" films had you reviewed before seeing "One Got Fat" recently? I note that, while you registered a complaint, you failed to offer a statement saying that you were quite familiar with such works. Also, did you not notice that these cyclists kept changing lateral positions without ever looking behind?

I thought that I had saved the file, but Google videos saved only the first small bit. Don't know why. So I have to set up a night, maybe tonight if I remember, for the many hours of download needed to get it all, so I can see it again.

It is because I have been studying bicycle transportation engineering, of which cyclist safety instruction is a part, that I have acquired a fund of knowledge somewhat larger than most people possess. That has enabled me to recognize the deficiencies in "One Got Fat" as soon as I saw it. I described those deficiencies as typical of the genre. For one reason or another, you choose to defend OGF as promoting the equality of cyclists and motorists, when in actual fact it is just one part of the system that promoted incompetent cycling on the basis that cyclists were incapable of exercising traffic judgment. I did not create this argument just based on watching OGF; I have been making it for thirty years, and nobody has advanced significant criticism of that view.

For that matter, and this is, I suppose, why you are opposed to my view, the bikeway system is based on the same view that cyclists are incapable of exercising traffic judgment, so that they have to have bike-lane stripes to keep them in line, even though that contradicts standard traffic operations. Oh, yes, there is the argument that motorists need the bike-lane stripe to prevent them from running over cyclists ahead. As I've written, again for years, that was never a problem in urban daylight traffic; we rode for decades without noticing this as a problem, and when Cross issued his car-bike collision studies, our opinion was confirmed.

By your logic, since motorcyclists are significantly faster than bicyclists, motorcyclists should be overlooked significantly more often, per hundred miles traveled, than bicyclists. Do you believe that to be the case?

First of all, you seem to have misread my post as an exercise in logic. It was not. It was a relation of my experience as a cyclist in traffic.

I have no idea if motorcyclists are overlooked more often than bicyclists. If I had ridden motorbikes as much as I have ridden bicycles I could tell you. But I do know that motorcyclists generally run with a light, are significantly beefier than bikes, and tend to make some noise; and I know that the safety stats for motorcyclists are considerably worse than they are for pedal cyclists.

Robert

I agree that, all other factors held equal, a faster (motor- or bi-) cyclist is more likely to be overlooked than a slower cyclist. But I also think that a motorcyclist is safer in the middle of the traffic lane where traffic is expected to be than in the road margin, where traffic is generally less expected, whether he is traveling 25, 45 or 15, or even 8 mph, and so is a bicyclist, for the exact same reasons.

Nice Edit! Presto Change-o.

Nice Edit! Presto Change-o.
The edit button is there for a reason, is it not?

All I did was add a clarification paragraph a minute later. I'll add an EDIT tag.

First of all, you seem to have misread my post as an exercise in logic. It was not. It was a relation of my experience as a cyclist in traffic.

I have no idea if motorcyclists are overlooked more often than bicyclists. If I had ridden motorbikes as much as I have ridden bicycles I could tell you. But I do know that motorcyclists generally run with a light, are significantly beefier than bikes, and tend to make some noise; and I know that the safety stats for motorcyclists are considerably worse than they are for pedal cyclists.

Robert
Do you agree that a motorcyclist is safer in the middle of the traffic lane where traffic is expected to be than in the road margin, where traffic is generally less expected, whether he is traveling 25, 45 or 15, or even 8 mph, and that this is how motorcycling safety courses teach motorcyclists to ride? If not, why not?

If so, do you not agree that the same logic should apply to bicyclists? If not, why not?

it must be time for a new poll....

First of all, you seem to have misread my post as an exercise in logic. It was not. It was a relation of my experience as a cyclist in traffic.

Robert,

This is an exercise in logic, whether you recognize it or not:



I've been overlooked in every road position imaginable over the years and find that rider speed is a much more important factor than position. That is, the faster you are riding, the less likely you are to be noticed by crossing traffic, pedestrians, people pulling out of parking spaces, etc. A fast-moving cyclist eight feet to the left of the bike lane is less likely to be noticed than a slow-mover in the bike lane, ime.

Based on your experience, you reach the following general conclusions with logic:


rider speed is a much more important factor than position
the faster you are riding, the less likely you are to be noticed
a fast-moving cyclist eight feet to the left of the bike lane is less likely to be noticed than a slow-mover in the bike lane

Do you agree that a motorcyclist is safer in the middle of the traffic lane where traffic is expected to be than in the road margin, where traffic is generally less expected, whether he is traveling 25, 45 or 15, or even 8 mph, and that this is how motorcycling safety courses teach motorcyclists to ride? ...

The answer is of course. Of course!

But you are perhaps deliberately missing the point and encouraging others to miss the point as well, which I regard as a dangerous and misguided form of advocacy. The point is that motorcyclists and bicyclists are going to be overlooked no matter where or how they ride. It's as inevitable as the tides.

Imagine, two cyclists on the same urban street lined with the same parked cars, speeding along in the same position, with a huge buffer between them and right side hazards. One rides out there because they understand the inevitability of intrusions from peds and motorists who will fail to notice them and they want to be as far away as practicable when the inevitable occurs. The other rides there because they feel this position will maximize their visibility to motorists and make intrusions unlikely. I will remind you that these riders are positioned exactly the same, so they have both maximized visibility just the same. And yet one will be ready and one will be surprised when the inevitable occurs.

Robert

Sure cyclist should look back before changing lateral positions on the roadway but your original complaint about the video was that the cyclists did not look back before making a left turn from the center of a lane. I personally think that was an unfair criticism unless you are assuming the cyclists was riding non-VC to the far right and therefore should be instructed on how to ride VC from a non VC lane position. That is essentially a contradiction in principles and you are failing to get across a coherent message and a valid point.

Being a slow moving vehicle on the road, you are much more likely to have someone looking to pass you then if you were travelling at the speed of traffic. Because of this fact, it's important that before making any lateral change in position that you check behind you to verify if someone is there and if they have recognized your signal. Doing just this has saved me a few times making the left turn into work. We have a left turn lane that begins about 100 feet from the entrance and a few times I've signalled my left turn and as I'm about to move into the turn lane, some JAM decides to pass me first using the turn lane (arghh). I'm already left biased in the straight lane clearly signalled my intent to move into the left turn lane but I've learned that it's still important to check behind first before moving and I do it every time now.

Yeah, well, much of what Einstein said doesn't make any freakin' sense to me either, and that's why I don't understand it. But I don't conclude from that that what he says doesn't make any freakin' sense, period.

There are plenty of people who understand what Forester is saying, whether they agree with him or not ("Listening to Bike lanes" by Jeffrey Hiles (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/contents.html) is a particularly salient example of a Forester critic who understands what he says).

If I can't understand someone, and nobody else can't either, then I might conclude that what he is saying doesn't make sense, period. But that is certainly not the case with Forester's writings.

Way to not get it.

I understand Forester's sentences. They're quite simple to understand, if not long winded.

The not-making-sense thing comes from his creation of false data and assumptions. Dur.

The point is that motorcyclists and bicyclists are going to be overlooked no matter where or how they ride. It's as inevitable as the tides.

Imagine, two cyclists on the same urban street lined with the same parked cars, speeding along in the same position, with a huge buffer between them and right side hazards. One rides out there because they understand the inevitability of intrusions from peds and motorists who will fail to notice them and they want to be as far away as practicable when the inevitable occurs. The other rides there because they feel this position will maximize their visibility to motorists and make intrusions unlikely. I will remind you that these riders are positioned exactly the same, so they have both maximized visibility just the same. And yet one will be ready and one will be surprised when the inevitable occurs.
Robert
Mr. Hurst,

Excuse me, but what it the "inevitable?" Is it being run over from behind?

I have ridden in Atlanta for over 10 years with motor traffic without bike facilities, and this has never happened to me, despite my often central lane positioning. I have gotten a few lectures, though.

If this has happened to you, what was your avoidance maneuver? Does it happen frequently in Denver?

Mr. Hurst,

Excuse me, but what it the "inevitable?" Is it being run over from behind?
...

Being overlooked by crossing traffic, peds and drivers who want to move into or across your intended path, is inevitable regardless of lane position. Being overlooked by same-direction drivers is extremely rare in comparison.

R.

Well, how many "bike-safety" films had you reviewed before seeing "One Got Fat" recently? I note that, while you registered a complaint, you failed to offer a statement saying that you were quite familiar with such works. Also, did you not notice that these cyclists kept changing lateral positions without ever looking behind?

I thought that I had saved the file, but Google videos saved only the first small bit. Don't know why. So I have to set up a night, maybe tonight if I remember, for the many hours of download needed to get it all, so I can see it again.

It is because I have been studying bicycle transportation engineering, of which cyclist safety instruction is a part, that I have acquired a fund of knowledge somewhat larger than most people possess. That has enabled me to recognize the deficiencies in "One Got Fat" as soon as I saw it. I described those deficiencies as typical of the genre. For one reason or another, you choose to defend OGF as promoting the equality of cyclists and motorists, when in actual fact it is just one part of the system that promoted incompetent cycling on the basis that cyclists were incapable of exercising traffic judgment. I did not create this argument just based on watching OGF; I have been making it for thirty years, and nobody has advanced significant criticism of that view.

For that matter, and this is, I suppose, why you are opposed to my view, the bikeway system is based on the same view that cyclists are incapable of exercising traffic judgment, so that they have to have bike-lane stripes to keep them in line, even though that contradicts standard traffic operations. Oh, yes, there is the argument that motorists need the bike-lane stripe to prevent them from running over cyclists ahead. As I've written, again for years, that was never a problem in urban daylight traffic; we rode for decades without noticing this as a problem, and when Cross issued his car-bike collision studies, our opinion was confirmed.

Credentials
I know someone in Maryland Highway Safety Office with more credentials then you and he insists that cyclists should ride as far right as possible for their safety. So forgive me, it takes more then credentials to produce a sound argument, quoting studies and well articulated arguments should be fundamental to be persuasive. If you have to rely on credentials and nothing else it really is a poor persuasive argument.

Traffic judgment
I do hear you on the necessity to teach children this and I agree that important safety details are left out of safety education material for children because some other person with a lot of credentials on children thinks that children are incapable of following such details despite examples, studies and sound arguments. Somebody really needs to make a point that credentials do not trump a sound argument.


I did not create this argument just based on watching OGF; I have been making it for thirty years, and nobody has advanced significant criticism of that view.
But at the same time your argument has not become mainstream either. So even though you are right, you have failed to convince. Failure to convince is essentially the same as being perceived as wrong by those in power. That in itself is a significant criticism.

Safety videos
But I still maintain that safety videos are designed to cover the major errors of the time/locality and by there very nature cannot contain all details. Any video that covers topic X well will also fail to cover some topic Y well, that is just the nature of the beast. To imply that since they failed to cover topic Y that means that there is some sort of conspiracy to cover up the importance of Y, so that means there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, Nancy Grace rapes puppies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-JgTnR2jkk) and cottage cheese contains arsenic (http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2004/12/04/scripts/commercial.shtml). Proving things by an absence is not an acceptable proof.

He that is not with me is against me

For that matter, and this is, I suppose, why you are opposed to my view

I will try to be a little clearer, you have points I agree with but this discussion I am finding fault with how you set up polar opposites (cyclists’ inferiority - VC) that is supposed to explain everything about safe/not safe riding. I am not saying cyclist inferiority does not explain some things but I am saying it fails to explain everything. I am also saying trying to force a binary state of ether cyclists’ inferiority or VC is not helpful as it creates divisions where no division needs to be.

If all important topics need to be covered and can be covered in a safety video then I repeat my challenge of showing just one cycling safety video that does that. You critique the bikeway system for being contradictory yet bicycle safety as taught nation wide is also contradictory (example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guYD8g_ee7k ) If we are allowed to develop criteria to accept or reject safety advise then why can’t we develop criteria to accept or reject bikeway designs on the basis that they don’t contradict standard traffic operations? Or said a little differently; correct cycling safety information has failed to reach a significant portion of the population and correct bikeway designs have failed to be accessible to a significant portion of the population.

I’m sorry but I don’t see education being a panacea anytime soon nor do I see bikeways being a panacea either. So I try to kick both in the rear end to be better then what they are now.


the bikeway system is based on the same view that cyclists are incapable of exercising traffic judgment,
FWIW isn’t all road engineering an attempt to at least limit traffic judgment and judgment errors? My point here is you make standard engineering sound evil, it is valid that designs that contradict standard traffic operations are not good but limiting traffic judgment in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

The answer is of course. Of course!

But you are perhaps deliberately missing the point and encouraging others to miss the point as well, which I regard as a dangerous and misguided form of advocacy. The point is that motorcyclists and bicyclists are going to be overlooked no matter where or how they ride. It's as inevitable as the tides. The last time I remember being overlooked in a situation where it mattered was just before I read Effective Cycling and changed my attitude and cycling, so about 3-4 years ago. I was filtering forward in a bike lane on a downhill about 20 mph to the right of stopped/congested traffic when suddenly a soccer mom in her minivan gunned it out of her lane, across the bike lane and into a sidestreet. I still don't know how I avoided crashing into the side of the van, for she cut right in front of me leaving me no where to go. All I know is I ended up next to her on the side street, and I couldn't recall the moments that got me there. It was like a dream.

Never-the-less, I continue to verify whether I'm noticed by whoever I need to notice me, but it doesn't seem to happen enough anymore to call it "inevitable". For one thing, I don't filter forward at 20 mph in the bike lane any longer, and certainly not across intersections.


Imagine, two cyclists on the same urban street lined with the same parked cars, speeding along in the same position, with a huge buffer between them and right side hazards. One rides out there because they understand the inevitability of intrusions from peds and motorists who will fail to notice them and they want to be as far away as practicable when the inevitable occurs. The other rides there because they feel this position will maximize their visibility to motorists and make intrusions unlikely. I will remind you that these riders are positioned exactly the same, so they have both maximized visibility just the same. And yet one will be ready and one will be surprised when the inevitable occurs.

Robert This is the crux of our disagreement. Part of the problem is we keep framing the problem differently. I think it's only fair to recognize both framings, and address them separately. Yours is (1), mine is (2). In both framings, we refer to two different cyclists, let's say the "vehicular cyclist" and the "messenger". In your framing, (1), we go with your definitions. In mine, (2), we go with my slight alterations.

vehicular cyclist: positions himself "centerish" because he feels this position will maximize his visibility to motorists and make intrusions unlikely.

messenger: positions himself "centerish" because he understands the inevitability of intrusions from peds and motorists who will fail to notice them and wants to be as far away as practicable when the inevitable occurs.

Contention: The messenger will be ready and the vehicular cyclist will be surprised when the inevitable occurs. The implication is that the messenger will be more mentally prepared and more likely to evade the inevitable potential harm.

vehicular cyclist: positions himself "centerish" habitually, when faster same direction traffic is not present, because he feels this position maximizes his visibility to motorists, makes intrusions less likely, gives him more buffer/escape space, improves his sight lines, and puts him in appropriate destination positioning for all intersections, even minor ones such as driveways and hidden alleys. For example, on a road with a 4 1/2 foot wide door zone bike lane he'll ride centerish, well outside of the bike lane, whether he happens to remember that blind alley his road is about to intersect or not.

messenger: positions himself "centerish" when he can recognize a potential hazard at which point he sometimes remembers to be as far away as practicable when the inevitable occurs. For example, on a familiar road with a 4 1/2 foot wide door zone bike lane he'll ride in the bike lane, albeit as far left as possible while still remaining in the bike lane, unless he happens to remember that blind alley his road is about to intersect, and recognizes the potential threat looming there [The Art of Urban Cycling, p. 65].

Contention: The vehicular cyclist will be ready and the messenger will be surprised when the inevitable occurs ["Suddenly (of course) a black Mercedes E-320 comes ripping out of a hidden alleyway backwards and the [messenger] bashes into it", Ibid]. The implication is that the vehicular cyclist will be more mentally prepared and more likely to evade the inevitable potential harm because his default centerish lane positioning is determined subconsciously by habit, while the urban cyclist relies on conscious recognition of a potential hazard before he remembers to ride centerish.I don't know what problems you may have with my framing, because the vehicular cyclist is based on what I've learned from Forester and others, and the messenger is based on your own writings, but the main problem I have with your framing is that you seem to imagine a vehicular cyclist oblivious to potential "inevitable" threats because of what you seem to be believe his overconfidence in the efficacy of his lane positioning, and nothing could be further from the truth. Because of his well-honed habitual practices, the vehicular cyclist encounters fewer conflicts, and, so, each one stands out more as an exception. The other aspect of VC that you seem to miss is the integration the vehicular cyclist establishes with traffic, and the role this plays in his being able to recognize who is "connected" with him, and who is not (and those who may or may not be but require particularly close attention because it's still TBD). Whether you call it "integration" or "dancing with traffic", the key is that the vehicular cyclist knows inwardly that he is a driver, and so he does not feel like a tresspasser in traffic. He is one of them; it's not a "me against them" paradigm for the vehicular cyclist.

I don't know if this analogy will work, but I see a connection in rock climbing. The belayer's job is to take out the slack in the rope as the climber climbs. There is a connection through that rope, and the climber can sense if the belayer is slacking almost immediately. Of course, the connection between drivers is not quite as physically direct as the rope is, but the effect is similar. It's like there is a virtual rope between the vehicular cyclist and every driver, ped, other cyclists, etc. who matter (potentially relevant to the cyclist's safety), and the vehicular cyclist makes sure it feels taught. When he notices a slacking, that's an immediate red flag, calling for his close attention. But the key is that he is always paying attention the rope. The idea that a vehicular cyclist would be surprised by the "inevitable" is totally contrary to the very essence of vehicular cycling.

And yes I know the intent of sharing the Mercedes incident was to illustrate the importance of paying attention, but I think it's very revealing in how it also demonstrates your reliance on conscious recognition to potential hazards before you adjust lane positiong, despite what you claim in another part of the book (with relatively little emphasis). I think this is the natural outcome of an approach that is so reliant on vigilance, and so reluctant to adopt and follow rules in accordance with best practices.

...snip...

Whatever...You prove yourself to be immune to repeated explanations about the dreaded 'Mercedes incident.' I suggest you go back and read my previous explanations to you in this forum--it's frustrating to take the time to explain things to you when you simply disregard it and go on as if it were never written. I was never even in the bike lane, sorry to burst your bike lane bubble. Had I been three feet right of the double yellow (where I was a few seconds before the collision, my habitual default position for that stretch of road) I obviously would have been better off, but I may still have been unable to avoid contact, judging by how far and how fast she rocketed out of the alley, and considering I was >>not watching the road and not paying attention to what was going on.<< A few feet on the roadway is not going to save an inattentive rider in that situation. Now back to the issue at hand...

A rider who positions to maximize space has no reason whatsoever to think about positioning to maximize visibility, because he or she has already done it. Just forget about it. Don't believe the hype. If 'being seen' is your prime directive, there are far better ways to do it. Slow down for instance. Wear a flashing vest. HH clearly has progressed to the point of believing the hype that lane positioning is a reliable way to ensure visibility. I call this 'lane positioning delusion' (LPD). HH doesn't yet understand that his not being overlooked in 3-4 years is a simple function of limited riding time and limited encounters with other road users on exurban roads. This is a major problem that only exacerbates the heartbreak of LPD. As of yet there is no little purple pill to take for LPD, but if you rode 20-30 hours per week in any dense urban area, you would experience obvious incidents of being overlooked (while riding lawfully and in a central lane position) several times per week, trust me, and then your delusions would be cured.

However rare these incidents of being overlooked may be, when they occur, and they will, they are the most important moments of your cycling life. Perhaps your entire life. Better be ready, and not surprised.

Robert

I ride a bright red motor scooter. I am overlooked quite a bit. This is why I ride as if I'm not seen. Riding in any particular lane position isn't the answer. Maybe part of the answer, but not the one that'll keep me alive out there.

Whatever...You prove yourself to be immune to repeated explanations about the dreaded 'Mercedes incident.' I suggest you go back and read my previous explanations to you in this forum--it's frustrating to take the time to explain things to you when you simply disregard it and go on as if it were never written. I was never even in the bike lane, sorry to burst your bike lane bubble.
The problem is that your story keeps changing. Now you're saying you were never in the bike lane.

I don't know what you think you've written to address this stuff, but I'm just going by your own words from your own book:

"[the cyclist] is as far to the left as possible while still remaining in the 4 1/2-foot-wide [bike] lane.". (p. 65)

I think your memory is playing tricks on you not only with respect to what actually happened there, but what you wrote about it, and what you think you've written about it here on this forum.

Let's say your claim above is true; that you were actually "never even in the bike lane", despite what you wrote in the book. Then why did you write that you were in the bike lane in the book? And if it was pedagogic license that caused you to alter the facts to write what you did, then why did you ignore the probable contributory factor of riding too far right in your hypothesized incident? If you just didn't think of it, you make my point: someone who thinks like a vehicular cyclist would not miss that teaching opportunity; but someone who thinks like a pragmatic messenger whose focus is on vigilance very well might miss it, whether he's writing, or riding.


Had I been three feet right of the double yellow (where I was a few seconds before the collision, my habitual default position for that stretch of road) I obviously would have been better off, but I may still have been unable to avoid contact, judging by how far and how fast she rocketed out of the alley, and considering I was >>not watching the road and not paying attention to what was going on.<< A few feet on the roadway is not going to save an inattentive rider in that situation. Now back to the issue at hand...
We can only speculate, of course. But the issue here is what is important to convey in a book on cycling.

Obviously not watching the road and not paying attention to what was going on was a contributory factor. But being further out would have improved not only your sight lines (which admittedly may have been a moot effect because you were looking the other way), but it would probably have improved your hearing lines and certainly would have improved the Mercedes driver's sight lines to you.

Someone pulling quickly out of an alleyway like that is probably not doing it for the first time. If she was doing as dramatically as you describe, then she could also easily have hit a car, which probably would have been traveling faster than you. What's much more likely is she relied on her usual method which is good enough for seeing and avoiding crashing into cars, because it involves looking out into the traffic lane. The reason she cut in front of you was probably because you were not riding where she always looks.

Had you been further left, the odds of her noticing you would have been much higher, and the whole thing probably could have been avoided before you even knew there was a potential conflict. That is the point you keep missing.



A rider who positions to maximize space has no reason whatsoever to think about positioning to maximize visibility, because he or she has already done it. Just forget about it. Don't believe the hype.
You are the only one hyping here, acting as if one "who positions to maximize space" actually does so, despite your blatant contrary examples in your own book.



If 'being seen' is your prime directive, there are far better ways to do it. Slow down for instance. Wear a flashing vest. HH clearly has progressed to the point of believing the hype that lane positioning is a reliable way to ensure visibility. I call this 'lane positioning delusion' (LPD). HH doesn't yet understand that his not being overlooked in 3-4 years is a simple function of limited riding time and limited encounters with other road users on exurban roads. This is a major problem that only exacerbates the heartbreak of LPD. As of yet there is no little purple pill to take for LPD, but if you rode 20-30 hours per week in any dense urban area, you would experience obvious incidents of being overlooked (while riding lawfully and in a central lane position) several times per week, trust me, and then your delusions would be cured.

However rare these incidents of being overlooked may be, when they occur, and they will, they are the most important moments of your cycling life. Perhaps your entire life. Better be ready, and not surprised.

Robert

I've never claimed that lane positioning is some kind of panacea. That I have is a strawman argument.

It's all about odds. But I do think that lane positioning reduces the odds a cyclist will encounter conflict, and therefore allows him to use vigilance more effectively. His experience is less watered down with "noise" conflicts, if you will.

The problem is that your story keeps changing....

HH, I first went over this with you in October, 2005. I went back and looked. You said, "Thanks for clearing that up." But then you apparently forgot all about that and we had to go over it again in October, 2006. Then you apparently forgot again soon thereafter, and are now repeating the same clueless crap. I can only conclude that you simply disregard and forget whatever I say if you don't like it or it doesn't jibe with your worldview, and that trying to explain things to you is a waste of time. If you want to know about this then go back and read what I already wrote to you about it.



Let's say your claim above is true; that you were actually "never even in the bike lane", despite what you wrote in the book. Then why did you write that you were in the bike lane in the book? And if it was pedagogic license that caused you to alter the facts to write what you did, then why did you ignore the probable contributory factor of riding too far right in your hypothesized incident? If you just didn't think of it, you make my point: someone who thinks like a vehicular cyclist would not miss that teaching opportunity; but someone who thinks like a pragmatic messenger whose focus is on vigilance very well might miss it, whether he's writing, or riding.

You missed it. There are a number of things I could have done to avoid the collision, while riding in THAT position, near the left line of the bike lane. In urban areas, it is necessary for a cooperative cyclist to ride in THAT position or even further right while passing minor intersections with alleys and driveways, because these intersections arrive every five seconds or so at most. Better have your head in the game when you're doing it, your head up, your eyes forward, and be traveling at appropriate speed.



Obviously not watching the road and not paying attention to what was going on was a contributory factor. But being further out would have improved not only your sight lines (which admittedly may have been a moot effect because you were looking the other way), but it would probably have improved your hearing lines and certainly would have improved the Mercedes driver's sight lines to you.

Someone pulling quickly out of an alleyway like that is probably not doing it for the first time. If she was doing as dramatically as you describe, then she could also easily have hit a car, which probably would have been traveling faster than you. What's much more likely is she relied on her usual method which is good enough for seeing and avoiding crashing into cars, because it involves looking out into the traffic lane. The reason she cut in front of you was probably because you were not riding where she always looks.

Had you been further left, the odds of her noticing you would have been much higher, and the whole thing probably could have been avoided before you even knew there was a potential conflict. That is the point you keep missing.


HH, I don't know how many times I can say this to you. Try harder to let it sink in this time, as you are wasting a lot of breath and bandwidth: the driver of the Mercedes DID NOT LOOK before pulling out. DID NOT LOOK. She could not see any part of the traffic lane, period, from her position in the alleyway, with her view completely blocked by a van. Her answer to this dilemma was not to inch out and crane her neck to see what she could see, her answer was to stomp the accelerator and go for it. Kind of like your approach to arguing on this forum.

Robert

HH, I first went over this with you in October, 2005. I went back and looked. You said, "Thanks for clearing that up." But then you apparently forgot all about that and we had to go over it again in October, 2006. Then you apparently forgot again soon thereafter, and are now repeating the same clueless crap. I can only conclude that you simply disregard and forget whatever I say if you don't like it or it doesn't jibe with your worldview, and that trying to explain things to you is a waste of time. If you want to know about this then go back and read what I already wrote to you about it.
Robert, the "thanks for clearing this up" comment (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739394&postcount=39) from October 2005 was thanking you for showing up on this forum to clear up some of the details missing from the account in the book. The first thing you cleared up was clarifying that you were "too far right in that particular incident, and that this faulty positioning was one main reason for the collision". The other mystery you cleared up was provide an explanation for why you were in the bike lane (a car was approaching from behind). That's what I thanked you for clearing up. Now you seem to be claiming otherwise.

In that post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739299&postcount=38) you explained your positioning in the bike lane as being a result of moving over to let another car pass. Since then I have pointed out on numerous occasions that that car was clearly far enough back to not be involved in the impending sudden Mercedes pull-out crash, and, given that you were approaching an intersection with a blind alley, by vc destination positioning principles, you should have been further left until you passed the alley intersection.

Earlier in this thread you changed the story to say you "were never even in the bike lane."[1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4388353&postcount=225)] Since then I have pointed out the contradiction, so now you're saying you were "near the left line of the bike lane".

The whole thing just illustrates with great lucidity the huge flaw in the Hurst/Bluejay "maximize space" approach. You knew the alley was there because this was a routine route for you, but you did not know the Mercedes was there, much less that it was about to pull out. But you did know a car was approaching from behind. So, in order to "maximize space" with respect to hazards that you were aware of, you moved right, into the bike lane, despite the fact that you knew you were about to enter a blind alley intersection.



You missed it. There are a number of things I could have done to avoid the collision, while riding in THAT position, near the left line of the bike lane. In urban areas, it is necessary for a cooperative cyclist to ride in THAT position or even further right while passing minor intersections with alleys and driveways, because these intersections arrive every five seconds or so at most. Better have your head in the game when you're doing it, your head up, your eyes forward, and be traveling at appropriate speed. No one is arguing against having your head in the game. The issue is whether "having your head in the game" alone is enough to put you into the optimal lane position, particularly when you have not yet noticed the hazard that you are about to fall victim to, or whether following VC rules habitually does a better job of it. This is why the "maximize space" approach seems more reactive to me than does vehicular cycling. The "maximizing space" approach, as you describe it, is all about maximizing space between you and anyone who you could potentially come into conflict with. But this presupposes awareness of their presence before you can even know to maximize space between you and them. Again, this is so well illustrated by this example (but there others in your book), where you react to the one and only potential hazard you're aware of, the car coming from behind, and, so, move right into the bike lane, in the blind spot. Presumably, if you were aware of the Mercedes in the alley, you would have had to consider it too, and maximize space to it, and, so, would have chosen a more left position consistent with the VC position for proper destination positioning.



HH, I don't know how many times I can say this to you. Try harder to let it sink in this time, as you are wasting a lot of breath and bandwidth: the driver of the Mercedes DID NOT LOOK before pulling out. DID NOT LOOK. She could not see any part of the traffic lane, period, from her position in the alleyway, with her view completely blocked by a van. Her answer to this dilemma was not to inch out and crane her neck to see what she could see, her answer was to stomp the accelerator and go for it.

Robert I don't recall you ever saying this. It's funny I've been meaning to ask you if there was a van involved, because that would explain the blocked view. This is new information, though it confirms what I already suspected. Anyway, the insistence that the driver "could not see any part of the traffic lane, period, " is also new, and seems to contradict what you wrote in the book and in this forum, particularly when you wrote, " I was too far right in that particular incident, and that this faulty positioning was one main reason for the collision" [2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739299&postcount=38)]. I'm not sure what you think or believe now, but at least back in October of 2005 you seemed to think being further left might have helped avoid the crash.

I do believe the van completely blocked her view of the cyclist who was riding beside the van (and blocked his view of her car). But the presence of the sightline-limiting van is yet another reason to avoid moving right. Yes, we're supposed to move right to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable; that is the VC thing to do. But entering an intersection with an alley whose view is blocked by a van seems like a good time to slow down and move left, per VC rules, not move into the bike lane next to the van. But the latter, is, apparently, what the "space maximizer" is supposed to do, and did, and that's my problem with that approach.


Kind of like your approach to arguing on this forum. Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? You've said you were in the bike lane, and you've said you weren't in it at all. You've said being that far right and going too fast was a "main reason" for the crash, and you've said being further left wouldn't have mattered. Pardon me for being confused.

Robert, the "thanks for clearing this up" comment (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739394&postcount=39) from October 2005 was thanking you for showing up on this forum to clear up some of the details missing from the account in the book. The first thing you cleared up was clarifying that you were "too far right in that particular incident, and that this faulty positioning was one main reason for the collision". The other mystery you cleared up was provide an explanation for why you were in the bike lane (a car was approaching from behind). That's what I thanked you for clearing up. Now you seem to be claiming otherwise.

In that post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739299&postcount=38) you explained your positioning in the bike lane as being a result of moving over to let another car pass. Since then I have pointed out on numerous occasions that that car was clearly far enough back to not be involved in the impending sudden Mercedes pull-out crash, and, given that you were approaching an intersection with a blind alley, by vc destination positioning principles, you should have been further left until you passed the alley intersection.

Yes, yes. Further left. You're a super-genius.

Here's what I wrote about this, in Oct. '05, to you, same thing I'm sayin now: "This vehicle rocketed out of the alleyway all the way into the traffic lane. The driver could not see a thing and decided, what the hell, let's roll the dice. In such a situation it is obviously in the rider's interest to be as far left 'as practicable.' This gives you half a chance to see the play developing as early as possible and to be as far away from it as possible. Had the car behind me been closer, it might have collided with the vehicle as well." [To be honest, I didn't get a chance to take notes about what was going on with the car behind me, because I was flying through the air at the time. If she had pulled her stunt a second or two later, I might have made it by but there would have been a car-car smack-up.]

On the whole, your ideas on lane positioning reveal a certain disconnect from reality, HH. Staying left for every minor intersection as you seem to suggest would mean I would never be able to let anyone pass, ever, because in urban settings there are too many of these intersections and not enough space between them (every five seconds or so at most another intersection). And you can't ride like that. Common sense, common decency and the law dictate that we move right to let faster vehicles pass. And don't forget the lag time (that we talked about) when we transition left to right and back as cooperative cyclists. That means we will be occasionally compromising our space and our safety to cooperate with others, moving over a bit to let them pass at the same time that we would prefer to have maximized space by riding centrally or left in the lane. This compromise is unavoidable, so the idea is to be aware of when you're compromised and act accordingly (i.e. slow down and direct your attention properly), which I did not.

Of course, in the absence of same direction traffic, there is no compromise required.




Earlier in this thread you changed the story to say you "were never even in the bike lane."[1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4388353&postcount=225)] Since then I have pointed out the contradiction, so now you're saying you were "near the left line of the bike lane".

If on the line is in the lane then I was in the lane, or not, you choose. Who cares. It's irrelevant. Bike lane or no bike lane, I'm six feet from the parked cars at something like 20 mph, with my head in the stars, at the worst possible moment, and I get served.


The whole thing just illustrates with great lucidity the huge flaw in the Hurst/Bluejay "maximize space" approach. You knew the alley was there because this was a routine route for you, but you did not know the Mercedes was there, much less that it was about to pull out. But you did know a car was approaching from behind. So, in order to "maximize space" with respect to hazards that you were aware of, you moved right, into the bike lane, despite the fact that you knew you were about to enter a blind alley intersection.

You can't be serious with this. Moving over for the passing vehicle had nothing to do with maximizing space. That was the opposite of maximizing space, obviously. Illustrated in a most vivid and violent fashion.



I don't recall you ever saying this. It's funny I've been meaning to ask you if there was a van involved, because that would explain the blocked view. This is new information, though it confirms what I already suspected. Anyway, the insistence that the driver "could not see any part of the traffic lane, period, " is also new...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's like talking to a hole in the ground. You want to draw conclusions and pontificate about this incident, but you refuse to listen to the guy who was actually there.

Last year, after you repeated your now-familiar misled mantra -- "Had he been further left, the driver would have been more likely to see him..." -- I explained:

"Had I been further left, had I been in the middle of the travel lane, or riding the double yellow line, or across the street with a freakin cop light on my head and a flashing orange vest, wouldn't have made the slightest difference in aiding this driver's vision. Why? Because this driver Did Not Look. She was attempting to back out of a narrow alley that was totally blind because it was bookended with a large van on either side and lines of parked vehicles. Faced with this challenging situation, a complete impossibility of seeing traffic in the roadway from her position, what does she do? Does she inch her brand new Mercedes slowly out of the alley bit by bit, craning her neck wildly and giving herself a pulled muscle like most of us would have done? Does she enlist the help of a bystander to let her know when the coast is clear? No, she decides to just gun it, baby. This should be an instructive incident for those of us who feel that increasing our visibility to motorists is the most important thing."

I think you could clear up some of your confusion by paying attention. And by riding more.

Robert

Being overlooked by crossing traffic, peds and drivers who want to move into or across your intended path, is inevitable regardless of lane position. Being overlooked by same-direction drivers is extremely rare in comparison.

R.

Excuse me for not understanding your original post. However, in light of your explanation, I cannot fathom that a cyclist who is riding centrally, regardless of the reason, would overlook cross traffic.

Are you saying that a cyclist who is riding centrally to be more conspicuous will by nature overlook cross traffic?

On the whole, your ideas on lane positioning reveal a certain disconnect from reality, HH. Staying left for every minor intersection as you seem to suggest would mean I would never be able to let anyone pass, ever, because in urban settings there are too many of these intersections and not enough space between them (every five seconds or so at most another intersection). And you can't ride like that. Common sense, common decency and the law dictate that we move right to let faster vehicles pass.
In order to save me from wading through the whole thread, was there one lane in your direction, or two or more lanes?

In order to save me from wading through the whole thread, was there one lane in your direction, or two or more lanes?

One. (Noting that the existence of another lane would not absolve cyclists of the responsibility to share a wide-enough outside lane with faster traffic.)

One. (Noting that the existence of another lane would not absolve cyclists of the responsibility to share a wide-enough outside lane with faster traffic.)
My experience on roads with one lane in each direction is that most of the time I'm not really going that much slower than motorists to have to worry about delaying them.

There are some roads in my area with one lane in each direction, where motorists can be considerably faster than cyclists. But these roads often have a center two-way turn lane, which motorists will use to pass me. This is technically illegal, but no one seems to mind as long as it is done safely.

[Edit: These observations are based on an urban setting, since the discussion above focused on lane position with respect to frequent minor intersections. Of course, there are high speed suburban/rural roads with one lane in each direction.]

If there are two lanes in my direction, I do share the outside lane if it is wide enough. But that is a legal requirement placed only on cyclists. Any other slow driver is only required to use the rightmost lane.

I'm not trying to take sides in the Hurst/HH debate; just trying to establish the circumstances where a cyclist would delay a motorist on a one lane road in an urban setting.

My experience on roads with one lane in each direction is that most of the time I'm not really going that much slower than motorists to have to worry about delaying them.

There are some roads in my area with one lane in each direction, where motorists can be considerably faster than cyclists. But these roads often have a center two-way turn lane, which motorists will use to pass me. This is technically illegal, but no one seems to mind as long as it is done safely.

[Edit: These observations are based on an urban setting, since the discussion above focused on lane position with respect to frequent minor intersections. Of course, there are high speed suburban/rural roads with one lane in each direction.]

If there are two lanes in my direction, I do share the outside lane if it is wide enough. But that is a legal requirement placed only on cyclists. Any other slow driver is only required to use the rightmost lane.

I'm not trying to take sides in the Hurst/HH debate; just trying to establish the circumstances where a cyclist would delay a motorist on a one lane road in an urban setting. From what I can gather, this is apparently a relatively major residential (with some commercial?) 2 lane (1 lane each direction) road with onstreet parking, door zone bike lanes, and frequent midblock intersections. I've asked for the actual street name before, preferably with the nearest cross street, but I don't believe Robert has revealed that (but maybe I did and just missed it, like I missed the reference to the van blocking the view).

Excuse me for not understanding your original post. However, in light of your explanation, I cannot fathom that a cyclist who is riding centrally, regardless of the reason, would overlook cross traffic.

Are you saying that a cyclist who is riding centrally to be more conspicuous will by nature overlook cross traffic? The attention of this particular cyclist (Robert) was attending to enjoying the aesthetic wonders of a particularly pleasing member of the opposite sex on a nearby porch.

The point of the story in the book is to emphasize the importance of paying attention and not getting distracted. But to me what's much more interesting is what else the telling of the story inadvertently reveals about Robert's approach to urban cycling, particularly his lack of priority on the importance and value of adhering to basic VC lane positioning rules. This is revealed in not only how he positioned himself in this incident, but also in his analysis of the whole thing both in his book and in his posts about it on this forum.

The fact that he was momentarily distracted by some babe remains the salient lesson for Robert, unfortunately.

Some relevant points from the book:


"an example, in fact, from real life" (Urban Cycling, 1st ed, p. 65)
"[the cyclist] is as far to the left as possible while still remaining in the 4 1/2-foot-wide [bike] lane" (Ibid)
"[the cyclist] is moving along at a good clip" (Ibid)
"the failure of the cyclist to respect a dangerous alley intersection hidden behind the plumber's van even though he had ridden this same route literally thousands of times and had been nearly run down at this same spot dozens of times..." (p. 66)
"Suddenly (of course) a black Mercedes E 320 comes ripping out of a hidden alleyway backwards and the cyclist bashes into it." (p. 65)


In addition to this, he has clarified the following on this forum.


The cyclist was Robert. [* (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739299&postcount=38)]
The reason he was in the bike lane was because there was a car approaching from behind and he wanted to let it pass. [* (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739394&postcount=38)]
He was not even in the bike lane. [* (httphttp://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4388353&postcount=225://)]
He was riding near the stripe. [* (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4391072&postcount=228)]
He was riding on the stripe. [* (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4393997&postcount=230)]

The only reason I mention (c), (d) and (e) was because of (c) where, when I called him on being too far right he was trying to claim he wasn't and even said, "I was never even in the bike lane", despite (2), (d) and (e).

Again, what's revealing to me is Robert's focus on the importance of paying attention, and his lack of focus, indeed complete ignoring of, the importance and value of developing VC lane positioning habits.

To Robert's way of thinking, the cyclist must not fail to respect an alley intersection hidden behind a van. In other words, he must consciously recognize the potential danger of that particular intersection before he takes appropriate action. This is why I see his approach to be much more reactive than VC. His approach relies on the cyclist being 100% vigilant all of the time, which I contend is humanly impossible, and his own example illustrates all too well. This is why I prefer the more proactive VC approach, which calls for destination positioning whether the cyclist recognizes a particular hazard or not. It's a much simpler algorithm, and, therefore, one that the subconscious mind can implement much more effectively and reliably. The concious mind is still free to override it, of course, but the default behavior is determined by the subconscious, and, so, is how the VC-ist normally positions himself, automatically.

Robert again revealed his lack of appreciation for the value of all this just a few posts back, when he wrote:



Had I been three feet right of the double yellow (where I was a few seconds before the collision, my habitual default position for that stretch of road) I obviously would have been better off, but I may still have been unable to avoid contact, judging by how far and how fast she rocketed out of the alley, and considering I was >>not watching the road and not paying attention to what was going on.<<

link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4388353&postcount=225).

What he's not recognizing here is the likely role of the driver not seeing anything or anyone in the street, because the cyclist was too far right (next to the van, in the bike lane), in "how far and how fast she rocketed out of the alley".

This is very logical, because since Robert knows that cyclists are sometimes overlooked even when they are visible, he, like most cyclists, often assumes he is invisible, and thinks and rides accordingly (rather than the VC approach of trust in his visibility in general, but verify he's been noticed when it matters).

What many of Robert's readers seem to have missed in his book is the theme that his approach is better than VC because he emphasizes vigilance and VC ignores it. What Robert doesn't seem to realize is how much his approach relies on vigilance, and, in particular, how much more his approach relies on the cyclist's ability to be vigilant 100% of the time than does VC. Couple that with the inherent fallibility of vigilance and you have an approach whose chief protagonist expects an experienced devoted practitioner to have about one solid wipeout per year and a more serious injury-causing wreck every 3-5 years (p. 157). I'll stick with VC best practices habitually integrated into my subconscious, thank you very much.

On the whole, your ideas on lane positioning reveal a certain disconnect from reality, HH. Staying left for every minor intersection as you seem to suggest would mean I would never be able to let anyone pass, ever, because in urban settings there are too many of these intersections and not enough space between them (every five seconds or so at most another intersection). And you can't ride like that. Common sense, common decency and the law dictate that we move right to let faster vehicles pass. And don't forget the lag time (that we talked about) when we transition left to right and back as cooperative cyclists. That means we will be occasionally compromising our space and our safety to cooperate with others, moving over a bit to let them pass at the same time that we would prefer to have maximized space by riding centrally or left in the lane. This compromise is unavoidable, so the idea is to be aware of when you're compromised and act accordingly (i.e. slow down and direct your attention properly), which I did not.


I have to agree with this whole heartedly... if in fact one rides leftish to avoid car doors and to be visible at every intersection, you may as well take and hold the lane the whole way. This is something I do often and I inevitably get the rude honks, the engines reving and the shouting from motorists. Of course it depends on the time of day... in the early morning hours when traffic is light, there is little problem... but around noonish when the day is in full swing and I "demand" my own lane in busy traffic, well let's just say that I am not treated in a manner conducive to "driving friendly."

Now I can do this all day long and somewhat relish in the fact that I do have the same rights to use the road, and that I am riding in a legal albeit somewhat "impeding" fashion. Sure I have the right to do it, but at 14 or 15MPH, motorists seem to have little patience in their persuit of 45MPH on this 35MPH road. But the fact is few cyclists ride like I do, as it can be nerve racking... further, if all cyclists rode in that leftish fashion, no doubt motorists would be ready to run us over in shear frustration.

Many cyclists in my area ride on sidewalks or ignore door zones and cower along in the narrow gap between the parked cars and the moving traffic.

On the whole, your ideas on lane positioning reveal a certain disconnect from reality, HH. Staying left for every minor intersection as you seem to suggest would mean I would never be able to let anyone pass, ever, because in urban settings there are too many of these intersections and not enough space between them (every five seconds or so at most another intersection). And you can't ride like that. Common sense, common decency and the law dictate that we move right to let faster vehicles pass. And don't forget the lag time (that we talked about) when we transition left to right and back as cooperative cyclists. That means we will be occasionally compromising our space and our safety to cooperate with others, moving over a bit to let them pass at the same time that we would prefer to have maximized space by riding centrally or left in the lane. This compromise is unavoidable, so the idea is to be aware of when you're compromised and act accordingly (i.e. slow down and direct your attention properly), which I did not.
I have to agree with this whole heartedly... if in fact one rides leftish to avoid car doors and to be visible at every intersection, you may as well take and hold the lane the whole way. This is something I do often and I inevitably get the rude honks, the engines reving and the shouting from motorists. Of course it depends on the time of day... in the early morning hours when traffic is light, there is little problem... but around noonish when the day is in full swing and I "demand" my own lane in busy traffic, well let's just say that I am not treated in a manner conducive to "driving friendly."

Now I can do this all day long and somewhat relish in the fact that I do have the same rights to use the road, and that I am riding in a legal albeit somewhat "impeding" fashion. Sure I have the right to do it, but at 14 or 15MPH, motorists seem to have little patience in their persuit of 45MPH on this 35MPH road. But the fact is few cyclists ride like I do, as it can be nerve racking... further, if all cyclists rode in that leftish fashion, no doubt motorists would be ready to run us over in shear frustration.

Many cyclists in my area ride on sidewalks or ignore door zones and cower along in the narrow gap between the parked cars and the moving traffic. Robert, you're not understanding. I agree with you say regarding the absurd style you describe (a mischaracterization of my riding). Gene, you know better.

I don't stay left for every single intersection. If it's a minor one and the sight lines are good enough to see that it's clear, and there are no potential left turners coming the other way, and the car/s behind me clearly want/s to pass and is clearly not turning right, then, yes, I'll move aside.

Hey, I just rode in to work through the very noontime traffic Gene is talking about. It was lighter than 8:30 am commuter traffic, but a bit heaver than 9:30 traffic. Anyway, I move aside all the time. I ride off to the right, even in bike lanes, in much of my cycling, but, because I don't expect to crash once per year, I do so only when it's necessary, safe, and reasonable.

When I'm riding at a good clip three feet from the double yellow stripe and there is a door zone bike lane to my right on a 2-lane street while approaching an alley with sight lines blocked by parked vans, and the car behind me is still far enough back to not be affected by the Mercedes that (unbeknownst to me) is about to suddenly pull out of that alley, I don't move aside into that bike lane whether I'm distracted by a babe or not, because:
It's not necessary
It's not safe.
It's not reasonable.I wait until I cross the intersection and the car behind me is closer, and then I move aside to about the bike lane stripe of a 4.5' bike lane (assuming there are no other reasons to make it unsafe or unreasonable). But that's because I view myself as a driver inwardly: I'm a VC-ist.

And Robert, as far as the lag time that we've discussed in the past and your contention that the compromise is unavoidable, you seem to have forgotton the role of effective mirror use in reducing that lag time to practically nil (Al/noisebeam knows exactly what I'm talking about here). With the mirror, you can see the gap coming from behind, and know the last car before the gap reaches you. While it is still passing you, you look back, verifying it's safe to move left, and are already moving left into position as the rear of the last car passes you. That movement is attention-grabbing to the potential driver up ahead to whom the lag-time factor might be significant. Before the time the gap between you and the last car is of any significant length, you are already in the more conspicuous centerish position. Hence, practically speaking, there is no compromise. And this all happens naturally and automatically with a mirror-using VC-ist who, unlike the space-maximizing Adaptive experienced pragmatic reactive urban cyclist, is subconsciously habitualized to gravitate to the center whenever possible.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's like talking to a hole in the ground. You want to draw conclusions and pontificate about this incident, but you refuse to listen to the guy who was actually there.
You mean the guy who was there and says he was in the bike lane, was never in the bike lane, and was on the left stripe?

You mean the guy who was there and wrote, "It is true that I was too far right in that particular incident, and that this faulty positioning was one main reason for the collision." [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1739299&postcount=38)], and then chastises me as follows?



Last year, after you repeated your now-familiar misled mantra -- "Had he been further left, the driver would have been more likely to see him..." -- I explained:

"Had I been further left, had I been in the middle of the travel lane, or riding the double yellow line, or across the street with a freakin cop light on my head and a flashing orange vest, wouldn't have made the slightest difference in aiding this driver's vision. Why? Because this driver Did Not Look. She was attempting to back out of a narrow alley that was totally blind because it was bookended with a large van on either side and lines of parked vehicles. Faced with this challenging situation, a complete impossibility of seeing traffic in the roadway from her position, what does she do? Does she inch her brand new Mercedes slowly out of the alley bit by bit, craning her neck wildly and giving herself a pulled muscle like most of us would have done? Does she enlist the help of a bystander to let her know when the coast is clear? No, she decides to just gun it, baby. This should be an instructive incident for those of us who feel that increasing our visibility to motorists is the most important thing."

I think you could clear up some of your confusion by paying attention. And by riding more.

Robert
Since back in October 2005 you agreed riding too far right was a main reason for the crash, and you started claiming that there was no way she could see anything regardless of where you had been positioned only after I started criticizing your choices for not following VC best practices, please understand why I might choose to give that earlier version more weight than your later revisions.

To be clear, I don't for a second think or mean to imply that you're being intentionally deceptive. But I do believe your mind is playing tricks on you, which is normal with regard to remembering details like this about crashes. Based on the anything is possible principle, of course it is possible that she pulled out from a totally blind situation. But, remember, she's backing out, so the angle of her sight line in the direction you were coming from is better than it would be if she had been heading out. You have no way of knowing where she was in the alley, but it's reasonable to assume that she was biased left in order to improve that sight line/angle even more. It's also reasonable to assume that her angle/sight line was good enough to see that no traffic was coming that was far out in the lane, though she was still blind to narrow traffic traveling adjacent to the parked vans. You also have no way of knowing if she stuck out her tail just far enough for approaching drivers near the center line to see it in advance, and far enough out for her from the left side of the alley to see a significant ways down the street in your direction, but not far enough out for someone much further right in the bike lane to see it, or for her to see him, and then gunned it.

I note again that you're still not revealing the address of the location so that we can all look at the satellite photo of the street and alley.

Robert, you're not understanding. I agree with you say regarding the absurd style you describe (a mischaracterization of my riding). Gene, you know better.

I don't stay left for every single intersection. If it's a minor one and the sight lines are good enough to see that it's clear, and there are no potential left turners coming the other way, and the car/s behind me clearly want/s to pass and is clearly not turning right, then, yes, I'll move aside.

Hey, I just rode in to work through the very noontime traffic Gene is talking about. It was lighter than 8:30 am commuter traffic, but a bit heaver than 9:30 traffic. Anyway, I move aside all the time. I ride off to the right, even in bike lanes, in much of my cycling, but, because I don't expect to crash once per year, I do so only when it's necessary, safe, and reasonable.

When I'm riding at a good clip three feet from the double yellow stripe and there is a door zone bike lane to my right on a 2-lane street while approaching an alley with sight lines blocked by parked vans, and the car behind me is still far enough back to not be affected by the Mercedes that (unbeknownst to me) is about to suddenly pull out of that alley, I don't move aside into that bike lane whether I'm distracted by a babe or not, because:
It's not necessary
It's not safe.
It's not reasonable.I wait until I cross the intersection and the car behind me is closer, and then I move aside to about the bike lane stripe of a 4.5' bike lane (assuming there are no other reasons to make it unsafe or unreasonable). But that's because I view myself as a driver inwardly: I'm a VC-ist.

And Robert, as far as the lag time that we've discussed in the past and your contention that the compromise is unavoidable, you seem to have forgotton the role of effective mirror use in reducing that lag time to practically nil (Al/noisebeam knows exactly what I'm talking about here). With the mirror, you can see the gap coming from behind, and know the last car before the gap reaches you. While it is still passing you, you look back, verifying it's safe to move left, and are already moving left into position as the rear of the last car passes you. That movement is attention-grabbing to the potential driver up ahead to whom the lag-time factor might be significant. Before the time the gap between you and the last car is of any significant length, you are already in the more conspicuous centerish position. Hence, practically speaking, there is no compromise. And this all happens naturally and automatically with a mirror-using VC-ist who, unlike the space-maximizing Adaptive experienced pragmatic reactive urban cyclist, is subconsciously habitualized to gravitate to the center whenever possible.

We're riding in different areas... yeah, on Torrey Pines road the traffic is lighter at noon than at rush hour. Now try Clairmont Mesa Blvd on a nice Saturday at about noon, then make the turn south onto Clairemont Drive, head down to Mission Bay. I guarantee that the traffic is heavier at around noon on that route. And not one single bike lane for you to have to muck with. Nothing but two lanes either way and lots and lots of parked cars just waiting to throw a door open at you... You will take the lane... And there is no place to pull to the right... if you do, good luck trying to get back into the flow of motor traffic. Enjoy the ride.

Actually if you really want a good time... go practice the Clairemont Mesa blvd at 805 bridge at just after noon several Saturdays in a row. Then maintain your position in the lane all the way west. Its fun... you get to "control" lots of motorists. Be sure to do it alone.

...

I don't stay left for every single intersection. If it's a minor one and the sight lines are good enough to see that it's clear, and there are no potential left turners coming the other way, and the car/s behind me clearly want/s to pass and is clearly not turning right, then, yes, I'll move aside.
...
When I'm riding at a good clip three feet from the double yellow stripe and there is a door zone bike lane to my right on a 2-lane street while approaching an alley with sight lines blocked by parked vans, and the car behind me is still far enough back to not be affected by the Mercedes that (unbeknownst to me) is about to suddenly pull out of that alley, I don't move aside into that bike lane whether I'm distracted by a babe or not, because:
It's not necessary
It's not safe.
It's not reasonable.I wait until I cross the intersection and the car behind me is closer, and then I move aside to about the bike lane stripe of a 4.5' bike lane (assuming there are no other reasons to make it unsafe or unreasonable). But that's because I view myself as a driver inwardly: I'm a VC-ist.

Ah, look at the proud VC-ist everybody! He thinks he's got it all figured out.

Okay, VC-ist, at a 'good clip' you'll be passing an intersection about every four seconds on this street. That means that, since you waited til passing the alley to move over for the car, you're most likely going to be going through the next street intersection in the bike lane, unless you stop or slow down a whoooolle lot that is.. Won't you melt or something if you go through a street intersection in the bike lane?




And Robert, as far as the lag time that we've discussed in the past and your contention that the compromise is unavoidable, you seem to have forgotton the role of effective mirror use in reducing that lag time to practically nil (Al/noisebeam knows exactly what I'm talking about here). With the mirror, you can see the gap coming from behind, and know the last car before the gap reaches you. While it is still passing you, you look back, verifying it's safe to move left, and are already moving left into position as the rear of the last car passes you. That movement is attention-grabbing to the potential driver up ahead to whom the lag-time factor might be significant. Before the time the gap between you and the last car is of any significant length, you are already in the more conspicuous centerish position. Hence, practically speaking, there is no compromise. And this all happens naturally and automatically with a mirror-using VC-ist who, unlike the space-maximizing Adaptive experienced pragmatic reactive urban cyclist, is subconsciously habitualized to gravitate to the center whenever possible.

You're in your own little world. A world where "there is no compromise." That's an armchair world of your own devising. What if you find that you do have to compromise with your precious lane position, will you have any tools to deal with that? It seems doubtful. Being a one-note Johnny aint going to help you play with the orchestra.

Nobody is more 'habitualized to gravitate to the center' than someone who actually rides in urban areas with lots of side parking for hours each day. This is something I gather you do not do. Habits come from experience, my friend, not books. Experience tells us the best place to be in any given situation and also tells us that we're not always going to be able to ride in that happy place. Experience also teaches us that simply riding in the safest place on the road is not remotely good enough in terms of ensuring one's safety. If that's your only answer you're in trouble.

Robert

What he's not recognizing here is the likely role of the driver not seeing anything or anyone in the street, because the cyclist was too far right (next to the van, in the bike lane), in "how far and how fast she rocketed out of the alley".

Is this guy for real?

It's a good thing I have a sense of humor. HH, when I say she couldn't see a thing I mean it. The alley was bookended by vans and she had perhaps a fifteen foot section of road that she could see in front of the alley. There is no possible way she could see traffic approaching in either lane from her position, until that traffic was directly behind her vehicle. There was no possible way I was going to appear in this driver's field of vision, REGARDLESS OF LANE POSITION, until I was directly behind her vehicle, where I would have been for only a split second. The driver's vision was NOT A FACTOR in this incident.




....Couple that with the inherent fallibility of vigilance and you have an approach whose chief protagonist expects an experienced devoted practitioner to have about one solid wipeout per year and a more serious injury-causing wreck every 3-5 years (p. 157). I'll stick with VC best practices habitually integrated into my subconscious, thank you very much.

Uh, those are statistical realities for experienced riders, not something I made up. Note that experience requires actual riding.

Robert

I wait until I cross the intersection and the car behind me is closer, and then I move aside to about the bike lane stripe of a 4.5' bike lane (assuming there are no other reasons to make it unsafe or unreasonable). But that's because I view myself as a driver inwardly: I'm a VC-ist.
Ah, look at the proud VC-ist everybody! He thinks he's got it all figured out.

Okay, VC-ist, at a 'good clip' you'll be passing an intersection about every four seconds on this street. That means that, since you waited til passing the alley to move over for the car, you're most likely going to be going through the next street intersection in the bike lane, unless you stop or slow down a whoooolle lot that is.. Won't you melt or something if you go through a street intersection in the bike lane?
Uh, "going through the next street intersections" qualifies as one of the "reasons to make it unsafe or unreasonable".

Hey, if there is no safe and reasonable place to move aside while continuing at a good clip, and cars are stuck behind me, then I will slow down to let them pass. Right around the corner from my house is a steep hill on a narrow street, no marked lanes, and onstreet parking. I'll frequently dodge into an empty parking spot for a moment to allow traffic from behind, or oncoming traffic, to go by. Car drivers do that too (at least to let oncoming traffic go by). It's normal vehicular behavior.



You're in your own little world. A world where "there is no compromise." That's an armchair world of your own devising. What if you find that you do have to compromise with your precious lane position, will you have any tools to deal with that? It seems doubtful. Being a one-note Johnny aint going to help you play with the orchestra. I was speaking not in general, but with respect to managing lane position optimally. With effective mirror use, you can minimize the "compromise" periods of being off to the side when no one is next to you to almost nil.


Nobody is more 'habitualized to gravitate to the center' than someone who actually rides in urban areas with lots of side parking for hours each day. I trust that you believe this. Yet you ride as you rode in the Mercedes situation, and you analyzed it as you did. Both your riding and analysis reveal less of a centerish gravitation in your psyche than is required to actually practice it.


This is something I gather you do not do. This, and similar ad hominem attack statements are uncalled for. Please address my arguments, not me or my cycling experience or behavior which you know very little about.


Habits come from experience, my friend, not books. I've never said otherwise. Yet one can develop the habit of stopping on red, for example, by reading that you're supposed to in a book and without first experiencing a crash from running a red. At least I can.

Similarly, one can learn the advantages of centerish gravitation from reading a book, but you can only develop the habit with experience by making yourself do it until it becomes second nature, hence, experience.



Experience tells us the best place to be in any given situation and also tells us that we're not always going to be able to ride in that happy place. Experience also teaches us that simply riding in the safest place on the road is not remotely good enough in terms of ensuring one's safety. If that's your only answer you're in trouble.

Robert Earlier, I wrote this:



To Robert's way of thinking, the cyclist must not fail to respect an alley intersection hidden behind a van. In other words, he must consciously recognize the potential danger of that particular intersection before he takes appropriate action. This is why I see his approach to be much more reactive than VC. His approach relies on the cyclist being 100% vigilant all of the time, which I contend is humanly impossible, and his own example illustrates all too well. This is why I prefer the more proactive VC approach, which calls for destination positioning whether the cyclist recognizes a particular hazard or not. It's a much simpler algorithm, and, therefore, one that the subconscious mind can implement much more effectively and reliably. The concious mind is still free to override it, of course, but the default behavior is determined by the subconscious, and, so, is how the VC-ist normally positions himself, automatically.
I don't know why you choose to see a false dichotomy in what I'm saying, which you imply with statements like, "simply riding in the safest place on the road is not remotely good enough... if that your only answer"...

Let me try to explain it like this. The "safest" place on the road, given your intent/destiation, is determined by static and dynamic factors. By static factors I mean the layout of the roads, the stripes, the intersections, etc. By "given your intent/destination", I mean that if you're turning right, the safest place is likely to be near the right. If you're about to turn left, it probably isn't near the right.

The VC-ist takes both static and dynamic factors into account to determine the "safest" place. But the key is that his default position is determined by the static factors and controlled subconsciously by integrating best practices into his subconscious. That's his foundation. From that he deviates for good reasons that are brought to his attention through vigilance.

What I see missing from your approach is the strong vigilance-independent foundation. There is no foundation. Nearly everything is determined from scratch on the fly consciously relying totally on the cyclist's fallible vigilance. Where you ride by default is unclear (despite the handful of pages you devote to this issue), because there are no clear rules to tell you where to ride based on static factors alone. This is why moving right into a door zone bike lane while approaching an alley intersection with sight lines blinded by parked vans is not alarming to you. This is why writing about doing that is not alarming to you. This is why you don't even think of noting the role of riding in the bike lane in the crash does not even occur to you. This is also why it did not seem relevant to explain why you were so far right. Or so it seems to me.

Ah, the ponifications of the inexperienced. It smells like cherries!

Please address my arguments, not me or my cycling experience or behavior which you know nothing about.


This is why moving right into a door zone bike lane while approaching an alley intersection with sight lines blinded by parked vans is not alarming to you. This is why writing about doing that is not alarming to you. This is why you don't even think of noting the role of riding in the bike lane in the crash does not even occur to you. This is also why it did not seem relevant to explain why you were so far right.


Or so it seems to me.

Oh, all better now. It seemed like an ad hominem attack until you added those 6 words there. Phew, all good. Thanks HH, for your enlightenment. Thanks for playing.

Oh, all better now. It seemed like an ad hominem attack until you added those 6 words there. Phew, all good. Thanks HH, for your enlightenment. Thanks for playing. Brian,

I was addressing how I believe adopting Robert's approach/paradigm manifests itself in writing and riding, by citing specific examples. Right or wrong, that's not an ad hominem attack.

Since back in October 2005 you agreed riding too far right was a main reason for the crash, and you started claiming that there was no way she could see anything regardless of where you had been positioned only after I started criticizing your choices for not following VC best practices, please understand why I might choose to give that earlier version more weight than your later revisions.


Both HH. Try to grasp this simple concept. It would have been better for me to have been further left, but there is no road position that would have made me visible to this driver, because she did not look.

HH: It was for retorical effect. It was aimed to discredit Roberts "position" (it is a position only in your mind). It was emotional and a blatent strawman. What else would it be but an ad hominum attack? You are trying to score points, except that nobody is playing your game.

You try to pigeonhole people into "positions" so you can pick an argument. Why? Why not discuss riding style in a non-controntational manner. You are both (presumeable) experienced cyclists. If there is a significant difference in your riding style and you are both still alive (indicating there are no glaring errors), then you should be able to discuss various aspects without resorting to pure retorical one-upsmanship.

You resorted to pure retoric. That's ad hominem. What is your problem? Are you compensating for something? Robert has tons more experience on a bike than you do (from what you've admitted to, and why would you hold back if you have it?). Why not learn something from him?

HH: It was for retorical effect. It was aimed to discredit Roberts "position" (it is a position only in your mind). It was emotional and a blatent strawman. What else would it be but an ad hominum attack? You are trying to score points, except that nobody is playing your game.

You try to pigeonhole people into "positions" so you can pick an argument. Why? Why not discuss riding style in a non-controntational manner. You are both (presumeable) experienced cyclists. If there is a significant difference in your riding style and you are both still alive (indicating there are no glaring errors), then you should be able to discuss various aspects without resorting to pure retorical one-upsmanship.

You resorted to pure retoric. That's ad hominem. What is your problem? Are you compensating for something? Robert has tons more experience on a bike than you do (from what you've admitted to, and why would you hold back if you have it?). Why not learn something from him?

I don't think HH does learning. Not his style.