Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Vehicular model or Ped model?

Say the governor's office contacts you and asks you the following question:


We are looking into revising the law with respect to motorist and cyclist behavior at intersections with bike lanes. What do you recommend?

At an intersection where the rightmost/outside lane can be used for straight or right destination, and there is a bike lane painted to the right of it:

1) Use the "vehicular model" (CA uses now): right-turners required to merge into BL before turn.
2) Use the "pedestrian model" (OR and AZ use now): right-turners prohibited from entering BL and must yield to cyclists
3) At major intersections, end the BL 200' prior to the intersections, 100' at minor ones
4) At major intersections, end the BL 100' prior to the intersections, 50' at minor ones
5) End the bike lane stripe 100' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
6) End the bike lane stripe 200' prior to any intersection, no matter how minor
7) Other (please specify)

Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.

Drivers should merge into the bike lane before turning right; bike lanes should be eliminated prior to intersections as much as possible.

I would say "bike lanes??? we have bike lanes around here???"

chocolate

mmm, laneless underwear, that stuff rocks!

Items 3 through 6 are design standards, not laws. I presume you mean that in these cases the motorist cannot move legally right until the bike lane disappears? Also, the issue of turning into driveways is not addressed.
Well, if the bike lanes all end prior to the intersection, then the law is moot. I wanted to give that as an option for a recommendation.

The laws in (1) and (2) are assumed to apply at any intersection where a right turn is authorized, so that would include driveways.

Where the terms "minor intersection" or "all intersections" are used, driveways are included.

I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*

I like intesections where cyclists and traffic merge so as to prevent right hooks. Barring that though, I like th epedestrian model requiring right-turners to yield. I think that simply because they are turning and you are not should give you a right of way. That seems fairly "VC" to me *wink*
I think the reason it feels right to have turning motorists yield to through traffic to their right is because this "feels" familiar. In fact, this is the situation for pedestrians who are walking straight into a crosswalk from a sidewalk while right-turners to their left, who also have a green, must turn right across their paths. This is why it feels familar.

But the dynamics are totally different when it involves bicyclists in the bike lane rather than peds on the sidewalk. Here are the reasons:


The pedestrian is relatively static (relative to the moving motorist). When a motorist looks, where a pedestrian is or isn't is not going to change much over the next few seconds. If the corner is empty a second before the motorist gets to the intersection, there is not going to be a pedestrian there a second later when the motorist is turning right (barring situations where there particularly bad obstructions). The cyclist is not relatively static: at 15 mph a cyclist covers 22 feet per second. Right turning motorists are usually moving significantly slower than 15 mph the last few seconds before turning right.
The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be unexpected.
The pedestrian can basically stop instantaneously, and move laterally very quickly. The cyclist cannot stop nearly as quickly and is unable to move laterally without also moving forward.

2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.

That would not seem the case if a bike lane were there. If a bike lane were there, then the motorist should expect a cyclist to be in it, especially if he just passed the cyclist 10 seconds ago.

chocolate

+ pie

Chocolate pie, breakfast of ex champions. :D

My advice to the governor's office:

Bike lanes in the center of the road. Auto traffic to the right. At lighted intersections, the sequence for green lights would be bikes and pedestrians, left-turning autos, straight travelling autos. 400 pound weight limit on cars. Compressed air every 3 miles.

I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tutorial/solid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/part9b.htm#section9B05

And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.

I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tutorial/solid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/part9b.htm#section9B05

And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions. In CA, the solid stripes are supposed to end at least 100 feet before any intersection, 200 feet on faster roads. They may continue passed that point, but only as dashed stripes.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd/CAMUTCD-Part9.pdf

In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.

The bike lane stripes could also be dashed and not solid.

I voted using the ped model as the law (motorist must yield to cyclists.) but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections.

My reasoning follows roughly this logic:
If a bike lane or any sold white line lane marking exists, it is for the purpose to discourage crossing the line. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/PavMkgs/Tutorial/solid_lines.htm Therefore it would not be standard vehicular practice to require movement over a solid white line. Solid white lines imply those who are in the lane have the ROW over those who are crossing the lane. I strongly support that laws and pavement markings be in agreement with one another,

If we want motor vehicles to merge into the bike facility we have this http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part9/part9b.htm#section9B05

And if we want bikes to merge with vehicular traffic we end the bike lane.

This gives us all options in our tool kit to design roadways that make the most sense under a wide variety of conditions.


The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.

I voted other because you had no option for chocolate.

... but I would also advocate the design policy to end the bike lane strip 200’ before intersections. ...The trouble with this system is that it unduly restricts the merging distance. There are other posts giving more precise measurements, also. We want to provide the longest possible merging distance so that the two parties have the greatest choice in how and when to make their moves (or only one to move, of course). The location chosen to merge over, to lane change, depends on the traffic conditions at the particular time, which cannot be predicted in advance.

The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.

I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.

I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.

Another smoke and mirrors poll.

<sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>

You didn't even give the "models" logical names.

Another smoke and mirrors poll.

<sarcasm>I can't wait to see how he twists this one...</sarcasm>

You didn't even give the "models" logical names.
Another useless response from you.:rolleyes:

Other - I would recommend getting rid of the bike lane altogether.

The trouble with your response is that it lacks any precise references to be of any help what so ever.

I recommend that max merging distance mentioned in this thread and you criticize me for being unduly restrictive??? If others have given more precise measurements, logically that implies you favorer 50 or 100 foot merge distance over 200 feet. Don’t call me unduly restrictive.

I’ll note that I left the Chain Guard list because of your overly negative comments and you reading into things that are not there and totally useless arguments.

The fact that I referred to 50 and 100 foot distances as more precise doesn't mean that I prefer them. I only mean that they had a lesser range.

2. The pedestrian is generally more common and generally more likely to be
expected; the cyclist is generally less common and more likely to be
unexpected.
That would not seem the case if a bike lane were there. If a bike lane were there, then the motorist should expect a cyclist to be in it, especially if he just passed the cyclist 10 seconds ago. This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.

If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.

So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.

In practice, the solid stripes continues much closer than 100 feet, and the dash option is almost always used.
The bike lane stripes could also be dashed and not solid. Is this an echo chamber?

This is the myth of bike lanes - that they make motorists more aware of bicyclists. Simplistic speculation may lead one to think so, but there is no evidence of this, and thoughtful speculation suggests the opposite.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4135367&postcount=15
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.



If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.



In fact, that a cyclist is expected to be in a bike lane might lead a driver to be LESS likely to notice him, much like a jar of mayo is easy to not notice when you open the fridge looking for milk, precisely because you expect to see the mayo there (there is nothing unusual or unexpected about that). But if you see a big rat staring you in the face, you're likely to notice him, because he's unexpected.
So because he's "expected" in the sense that you mean a cyclist should be expected to be in a bike lane, he is less likely to be noticed. And because he is less likely to be noticed as he is passed, he is less likely to be expected (in the sense that I mean it) to pass on the right.

But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.
So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road? Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire. Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.


One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.

Is this an echo chamber?
Aparantly it is. Every time someone shows you the flaws in one of your pet theories you still stick to them like the flaw was never pointed out. Just like where I have shown you how your "bike lane myth" is not so, you will likely avoid that alltogether and still blather on in the future about your pet "myth".
So yes, this is an echo chamber, and all I hear in it is the faint calls of the VCists being echoed over and over.

I don't think I want to be like a rat in the refrigerator.

I really don't understand the kind of fear it takes to want to be a permanent surprise to other roadway users. I would prefer the interaction between motorists and cyclists to be ordinary and forgettable, not shocking and surprising.

Dashed bike lane stripe means motor vehicle operators can cross the line for making turns, etc.

Dashed does not mean (in AZ) that motor vehicle can travel (partly) in the bike lane, which is required if one merges into it before making a turn.

Al

Aparantly it is. Every time someone shows you the flaws in one of your pet theories you still stick to them like the flaw was never pointed out. Just like where I have shown you how your "bike lane myth" is not so, you will likely avoid that alltogether and still blather on in the future about your pet "myth".
So yes, this is an echo chamber, and all I hear in it is the faint calls of the VCists being echoed over and over. If you (or anyone else) think I'm still sticking to a point or theory despite someone showing flaws in it, please PM me with a link to the post where you feel the flaw is shown.

I try to address everything, but sometimes I just don't have enough time or energy, or maybe don't notice the relevance of something, or misread something, etc. But I never intentionally and knowingly just ignore a point. I have no interest in thinking I'm right about something when there are perfectly good reasons to think otherwise.

Thanks.

I don't think I want to be like a rat in the refrigerator.

I really don't understand the kind of fear it takes to want to be a permanent surprise to other roadway users. I would prefer the interaction between motorists and cyclists to be ordinary and forgettable, not shocking and surprising. Well, the rat in the fridge was obviously a dramatized example to make the point: the "expected" is easy to ignore, especially if it seems Irrelevant to what the person is doing. The unexpected and/or relevant is much less likely to be overlooked than is the expected and irrelevant.

I really don't understand the kind of fear it takes to want to be a permanent surprise to other roadway users. I would prefer the interaction between motorists and cyclists to be ordinary and forgettable, not shocking and surprising.
Thats why I ride centerish and also line up with traffic at stops so motorists see me well ahead and have plenty of time to consider the ordinary of another vehicle ahead of them, far better than causing the sudden surprise appearing out of knowhere on their right as they are turning right.

Al

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4135367&postcount=15
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.

I hadn't seen that post. I'll address it there.





If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.

Don't be silly. Surely you aren't arguing that signs are of equal importance to what is ahead in the driver's path? Surely you know drivers who rarely look at signs. Why? Because they are deemed by all drivers to be of secondary importance, relative to the primary importance of what's ahead, and by some drivers to be of very little importance. Next time you are with someone else, after passing a sign, ask them if they noticed it and what it said. Obviously, they'll probably know about a stop sign. The kinds of signs that are usually missed are: speed limit signs, "deer xing/rock falling", etc., especially on regular routes. There are exceptions - drivers who pay attention to all signs, but they are exceptions. But there are no exceptions to the fact that all drivers give what's ahead in their lane primary importance.



But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.

Because they are relevant to us. Have you read much about inattentional blindness? Perceived relevance plays a key role with respect to whether the subject notices something or not.



So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road?
Note that if all bike lanes are gone, only the stripe would be gone, the space would still be there. You don't seem to realize that.


Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire.
Why would you be "directly in the line of fire" any more or less simply because of a stripe being there or not?

As far as the mayo goes, say you were that jar and you wanted to be noticed by the person who goes in the fridge to get the milk. Where would you choose to be, in front of the milk carton, or off to the side of it? (please don't ignore this question - it gets to the heart of the matter).

To improve the analogy. Consider a refrigerator with only a few items on it. On the top left rack is a milk carton. The top right is empty. The bottom rock has a few items on it. You are the mayo that wants to be noticed by the person going for the milk. Would you just to be next to the milk on the top left, or on the empty rack to the right?



Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.
Removing bike lane stripes does not remove space that cyclists can use to allow faster traffic to pass, and removing those stripes increases their chance of being noticed by making the presence of the cyclist in the motorists lane more relevant to the motorists.



One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.
Yes, I still drive over 10,000 miles per year. I am a motorist and I think like a motorist. But I realize I'm also a cyclist, and that skews my views from that of a typical motorist who is not also a cyclist. So when I say "they" I am mostly talking about motorists who are not also cyclists.

If you (or anyone else) think I'm still sticking to a point or theory despite someone showing flaws in it, please PM me with a link to the post where you feel the flaw is shown.

I try to address everything, but sometimes I just don't have enough time or energy, or maybe don't notice the relevance of something, or misread something, etc. But I never intentionally and knowingly just ignore a point. I have no interest in thinking I'm right about something when there are perfectly good reasons to think otherwise.

Thanks.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4341114&postcount=33
I would like to see your responses to the points I have made here without using your myth about cyclists bike lanes being overlooked since I have already shown you one example in another thread of a motorist (me) taking note of bike lanes long before he (I) ever gave thought to taking up cycling.

I hadn't seen that post. I'll address it there.


Your response has been read, and responded to. Thanks.



Don't be silly. Surely you aren't arguing that signs are of equal importance to what is ahead in the driver's path? Surely you know drivers who rarely look at signs. Why? Because they are deemed by all drivers to be of secondary importance, relative to the primary importance of what's ahead, and by some drivers to be of very little importance. Next time you are with someone else, after passing a sign, ask them if they noticed it and what it said. Obviously, they'll probably know about a stop sign. The kinds of signs that are usually missed are: speed limit signs, "deer xing/rock falling", etc., especially on regular routes. There are exceptions - drivers who pay attention to all signs, but they are exceptions. But there are no exceptions to the fact that all drivers give what's ahead in their lane primary importance.

I don't disagree that drivers give what is ahead and in their lane more priority than things off to the side or in other lanes. Of course that holds true. But if the object off to the side or in another lane is a human being or any item that can cause them great harm then they do give it the consideration it deserves. This is one of the causes of rubber-necking incidents. And I have also noticed that when I am riding on a wide shoulder that motorists tend to be half way into their left lane as they pass me, even though there is 4 or 5 feet between my left side and the fog line to their right. People aren't cattle, they do perceive things around them.



Because they are relevant to us. Have you read much about inattentional blindness? Perceived relevance plays a key role with respect to whether the subject notices something or not.

That inattentional blindness crap is just that, crap. There are no peer reviewd studies on this. Only mishmush from people who are trying to use it to make a buck by testifying in court cases. I have said it before, just because something is on the internet, does not make it true.
Maybe it does have some truth in it... maybe. But remember my post to you about a multi-billion dollar industry that would like to rebute it? They are called advertisers and have a few hundred thousand bilboards up here and there that would like you to take them into consideration.



Note that if all bike lanes are gone, only the stripe would be gone, the space would still be there. You don't seem to realize that.
I realized what you were saying. But the stripe serves a purpose! People tend to keep their cars between the lines. If they are all willynilly drifting back and forth can you explain why the shoulder of the roads are so filled with crap while the lanes are clean?



Why would you be "directly in the line of fire" any more or less simply because of a stripe being there or not?

Read what I said about keeping it between the lines



As far as the mayo goes, say you were that jar and you wanted to be noticed by the person who goes in the fridge to get the milk. Where would you choose to be, in front of the milk carton, or off to the side of it? (please don't ignore this question - it gets to the heart of the matter).

I would chose to be where the person would expect me to be! And that is in the door next to the other condiments.
I'm getting hungry now.



To improve the analogy. Consider a refrigerator with only a few items on it. On the top left rack is a milk carton. The top right is empty. The bottom rock has a few items on it. You are the mayo that wants to be noticed by the person going for the milk. Would you just to be next to the milk on the top left, or on the empty rack to the right?

It all depends on where the person would expect me to be.
I'm really getting hungry now.
Ever misplace your car keys? If you were on your way out the door would you go to grab your keys off the key rack where you expect them to be or would you go looking thru your porn collection?
No need to answer that, it only proves to serve my point. I do see yours (point that is, not porn collection) but I think mine holds more merrit otherwise I'd just shut up about it.



Removing bike lane stripes does not remove space that cyclists can use to allow faster traffic to pass, and removing those stripes increases their chance of being noticed by making the presence of the cyclist in the motorists lane more relevant to the motorists.

But with the stripe there it's a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists so use this road so please be on the look out for them.



Yes, I still drive over 10,000 miles per year. I am a motorist and I think like a motorist. But I realize I'm also a cyclist, and that skews my views from that of a typical motorist who is not also a cyclist. So when I say "they" I am mostly talking about motorists who are not also cyclists.
Cool, now I know you have motoring experience. Now come to the east coast and see how things go here. Not everywhere is sunny California. I'm sure that on the roads you have there your ideas are likely the better of many options. But not everywhere is like that, you need to understand and consider. I have. I do make a point of considering that metro Detroit is ont indicitive of the entire US. That is why I always (almost) use phrases like "around here" and "in these parts".

I don't disagree that drivers give what is ahead and in their lane more priority than things off to the side or in other lanes. Of course that holds true. Good. You seemed to disagree with this earlier.


But if the object off to the side or in another lane is a human being or any item that can cause them great harm then they do give it the consideration it deserves. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You're not saying they ALWAYS "give it the consideration it deserves", are you? So the issue is does the stripe cause them to be more likely, or less likely, to give the cyclist the consideration he deserves. It's not about whether the consideration is given in any one given instance.


This is one of the causes of rubber-necking incidents. And I have also noticed that when I am riding on a wide shoulder that motorists tend to be half way into their left lane as they pass me, even though there is 4 or 5 feet between my left side and the fog line to their right. People aren't cattle, they do perceive things around them. Of course. But it's a matter of when and how often.



That inattentional blindness crap is just that, crap. There are no peer reviewd studies on this. Only mishmush from people who are trying to use it to make a buck by testifying in court cases. I have said it before, just because something is on the internet, does not make it true.
Maybe it does have some truth in it... maybe. But remember my post to you about a multi-billion dollar industry that would like to rebute it? They are called advertisers and have a few hundred thousand bilboards up here and there that would like you to take them into consideration. That is not my impression. It is my understanding that there is and has been a lot of legitimate peer-reviewed work done on the topic in the field of cognitive science.


I realized what you were saying. But the stripe serves a purpose! People tend to keep their cars between the lines. If they are all willynilly drifting back and forth can you explain why the shoulder of the roads are so filled with crap while the lanes are clean? That's a different argument.

I don't disagree that the line in general keeps people out of that space. My argument, though, is it is the line that does that, not the presence of the cyclist. What keeps them out of that space when there is no stripe there is that they tend to keep left, but some also keep right (which is why there is less debris in the margins when there is no bike lane or shoulder stripe). But what keeps them out when the cyclist is there is the cyclist's presence. Thus, they notice him. If this were not true, there would be many more cyclists hit from behind while riding off to the right in a WOL. Yet much more common are cyclists hit from behind riding in shoulders or bike lanes. Why? The only explanation I can think of is that the cyclist is more likely to be not noticed if there is a stripe, and, so, he is more vulnerable to drift. So, the stripe does nothing, and, arguably, may hurt.




I would chose to be where the person would expect me to be! And that is in the door next to the other condiments.
I'm getting hungry now. How does that help you get noticed by someone looking for milk? That's the point.

Let me put it this way. Say we each have a fridge in separate rooms, and we will have 100 people go in the fridge, get the milk out, measure how much milk is in it, and put it back in the fridge. Afterwards, each person will be asked to answer a few questions, one of which is: was there any mayo in the fridge? If your goal is to maximize the number of milk measurers who notice the mayo, wear are you going to put the mayo in the fridge? Next to the milk, or on a separate empty shelf?




It all depends on where the person would expect me to be.
I'm really getting hungry now.
Ever misplace your car keys? If you were on your way out the door would you go to grab your keys off the key rack where you expect them to be or would you go looking thru your porn collection?
No need to answer that, it only proves to serve my point. I do see yours (point that is, not porn collection) but I think mine holds more merrit otherwise I'd just shut up about it.
You're ignoring relevance. If you're looking for your keys, that's one thing. But most non-cyclist motorist are not looking for cyclists. They could care less about cyclists. They care about getting to the office. This is about making something that is generally irrelevant to someone to be relevant to them. We wear bright clothing. That helps. I say conspicuous lane positioning helps even more, and being in a separate lane does not do that.



But with the stripe there it's a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists so use this road so please be on the look out for them.
Yeah, and it's about as effective as a "deer xing" sign. Maybe if you're on a road in Wyoming for the first time, but if you have passed that sign, or bike lane, every day for the last five years, do your really think it reminds anyone of anything?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4135367&postcount=15
My own experience the first time I came into contact with bike lanes is enough for me. Remember, I AM A MOTORIST. I know exactly how a motorist acts and thinks because I am one. So there you go, you can forget this whole myth thing. I know exactly what I was thinking when I first saw bike lanes.

I hadn't seen that post. I'll address it there.





If you accept the premise that what is of primary importance to a driver is what is ahead in his path, that if drivers did not give what is ahead primary importance than they would crash much more often than they do, and that what is ahead in the driver's lane is more relevant to him than what is outside of his lane, then it follows that a cyclist up ahead in a bike lane is less relevant to a driver than the same cyclist up ahead who is within his lane.

Oh, so that's the reason there are no signs on the side of the road! Oh, wait a minute, there are. Hrm...
Drivers don't crash more often than they already do out of self preserverence. It's not like we, the drivers are out there to kill ourselves.

Don't be silly. Surely you aren't arguing that signs are of equal importance to what is ahead in the driver's path? Surely you know drivers who rarely look at signs. Why? Because they are deemed by all drivers to be of secondary importance, relative to the primary importance of what's ahead, and by some drivers to be of very little importance. Next time you are with someone else, after passing a sign, ask them if they noticed it and what it said. Obviously, they'll probably know about a stop sign. The kinds of signs that are usually missed are: speed limit signs, "deer xing/rock falling", etc., especially on regular routes. There are exceptions - drivers who pay attention to all signs, but they are exceptions. But there are no exceptions to the fact that all drivers give what's ahead in their lane primary importance.



But when driving we expect to see cars in front of us, how come we don't overlook them as well.

Because they are relevant to us. Have you read much about inattentional blindness? Perceived relevance plays a key role with respect to whether the subject notices something or not.



So what if you have your way and all bike lanes are gone and everybody rides their bike in the road?
Note that if all bike lanes are gone, only the stripe would be gone, the space would still be there. You don't seem to realize that.


Now cyclists are "expected" to be there. Now we are the jar of Mayo but instead of being off to the side we are directly in the line of fire.
Why would you be "directly in the line of fire" any more or less simply because of a stripe being there or not?

As far as the mayo goes, say you were that jar and you wanted to be noticed by the person who goes in the fridge to get the milk. Where would you choose to be, in front of the milk carton, or off to the side of it? (please don't ignore this question - it gets to the heart of the matter).

To improve the analogy. Consider a refrigerator with only a few items on it. On the top left rack is a milk carton. The top right is empty. The bottom rock has a few items on it. You are the mayo that wants to be noticed by the person going for the milk. Would you just to be next to the milk on the top left, or on the empty rack to the right?



Thanks Helmet Head, thanks for killing my neighbor because there wasn't a bike lane for her to ride in. She was hot too, but now she's dead... oh well.
Removing bike lane stripes does not remove space that cyclists can use to allow faster traffic to pass, and removing those stripes increases their chance of being noticed by making the presence of the cyclist in the motorists lane more relevant to the motorists.



One last thing.
I love the way you have removed yourself from being a motorist every time you talk about them. You say them and they but never us when you talk about how they are like sheep or stupid or how they overlook things and never pay attention. Don't you drive?
I gave up driving a long time ago but I still call myself a motorist. It's nice how you think you are better.
Yes, I still drive over 10,000 miles per year. I am a motorist and I think like a motorist. But I realize I'm also a cyclist, and that skews my views from that of a typical motorist who is not also a cyclist. So when I say "they" I am mostly talking about motorists who are not also cyclists.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You're not saying they ALWAYS "give it the consideration it deserves", are you? So the issue is does the stripe cause them to be more likely, or less likely, to give the cyclist the consideration he deserves. It's not about whether the consideration is given in any one given instance.

Of course I'm not saying always. Just as there is proof out there that shows that motorists do not always give what is in front of them the due respect that they should. Ever see a dead animal in the center of the road that has been run over three dozen times? People don't tend to think that the bones of that animal can puncture their tire. Nor does the second person to hit it think "omg, it could still be alive and the owner sure would like me to help". No, most of the time they just hit it and keep going, some making ignorant comments after they do so about points or .



Of course. But it's a matter of when and how often.

... a matter of when. That's a good line to keep in mind while riding and is part of my philosophy on things.



That is not my impression. It is my understanding that there is and has been a lot of legitimate peer-reviewed work done on the topic in the field of cognitive science.

I have yet to see any study on cognitive sciences that supports this [i]inattentional blindness theory. You show me one that does and I'll gladly retract my statemes refuting it.



That's a different argument.

I don't disagree that the line in general keeps people out of that space. My argument, though, is it is the line that does that, not the presence of the cyclist.

Well then, if you subscribe to IB (inattentional blindness) would you not rather the people have that line there that keeps them from entering that space so that if their IB kicks in you are not directly in front of them?



What keeps them out of that space when there is no stripe there is that they tend to keep left, but some also keep right (which is why there is less debris in the margins when there is no bike lane or shoulder stripe). But what keeps them out when the cyclist is there is the cyclist's presence. Thus, they notice him.

Once again. they "keep it between the lines". This little phrase is instilled in everyones mind, even children know it. Sure, hugging the left line is what alot of motorists do. But they also avoid crossing the right fog line as well. You can't overlook that fact! No matter how much someone wants to not believe it, it is true!



If this were not true, there would be many more cyclists hit from behind while riding off to the right in a WOL. Yet much more common are cyclists hit from behind riding in shoulders or bike lanes. Why?

Maybe it is because there are more cyclists in the bike lanes and shoulders than in the lane itself. That is one possible conclusion. But there is not enough evidence to support this or to refute it. Another reason could be that, most of the shoulder riding cyclists are hit during the dark hours while on a country-type road by a motorist who is not of the sober variety. At which point it would not matter in my opinion where they are. Once the alcahol deamon takes over a persons visuals (read: passing out) there is no where a person can be that assures them safety unless they are 30 miles away in a bomb shelter.



The only explanation I can think of is that the cyclist is more likely to be not noticed if there is a stripe, and, so, he is more vulnerable to drift. So, the stripe does nothing, and, arguably, may hurt.

I totally disagree, as does a majority of the people on this board. Keep it between the lines. Remember that phrase? That is what the stripe does. A motorist is taught that their lane is between the stripe on the left and the stripe on the right, weren't you? And this is what helps protect the cyclist from drift. I do not believe whatsoever that a motorist does not notice someone in front and to the right of them wether there is a line of not.



How does that help you get noticed by someone looking for milk? That's the point.

Let me put it this way. Say we each have a fridge in separate rooms, and we will have 100 people go in the fridge, get the milk out, measure how much milk is in it, and put it back in the fridge. Afterwards, each person will be asked to answer a few questions, one of which is: was there any mayo in the fridge? If your goal is to maximize the number of milk measurers who notice the mayo, wear are you going to put the mayo in the fridge? Next to the milk, or on a separate empty shelf?

This is as irrelevant as my car keys question to you. And I posed that question to show you. Someone going to get milk from a fridge does not have the instilled nature to notice anything else in there because it is neither relevant, important, or affectant towards them. Now if you put a severed penis in the door they would all notice that! But all of this is besides the point. We can not compare people to milk, mayo, or penises... well, not the milk and mayo at least.



You're ignoring relevance. If you're looking for your keys, that's one thing. But most non-cyclist motorist are not looking for cyclists. They could care less about cyclists. They care about getting to the office. This is about making something that is generally irrelevant to someone to be relevant to them. We wear bright clothing. That helps. I say conspicuous lane positioning helps even more, and being in a separate lane does not do that.

I wasn't ignoring relevance, I was avoiding it in order to make a point that all this talk about anything besides human life, which is what is important in these decisions, is moot.



Yeah, and it's about as effective as a "deer xing" sign. Maybe if you're on a road in Wyoming for the first time, but if you have passed that sign, or bike lane, every day for the last five years, do your really think it reminds anyone of anything?
But what if you pass the sign every day, and every day there are 10 to 20 deer standing there waiting to cross the road?

Motorists read the signs. If they did not, they wouldn't put the signs there. They read the deer crossing signs, too. How do I know? Because the other day I was a passenger and the driver slowed down for apparently no reason, and then I saw it: a deer in the road. The driver said he always takes extra care through there because there are deer crossing signs, and sure enough, there are deer, too.

Maybe you, Helmet Head, are a more careless than average driver?

Ironically, I just watched it on the news tonight. The freeways around here have 70mph speed limits. They were changed from 65 to 70 a few months ago but the signed were never changed due to the budget. They just took alot of them down but never made new ones.
The news had a big story on how people were freaking out because the speed limit signs have been taken down.
This shows me that people are looking for the signs, obviously because they are not now seeing them where they expected to see them... which is on the side of the road.

The news had a big story on how people were freaking out because the speed limit signs have been taken down.
People want to know how fast they can go without getting a ticket