There is the intersection I was at. 45 MPH speed limit and the 2 w/b lanes of James St. turn into one just outside the picture to the west. North is up on the map, and I was riding westbound along the side path/bike path on the north side of the road. Approaching the intersection I see a young gal in a car waiting in the middle turn lane to turn from e/b James to n/b Van Ommen and she is inching forward because the light is late in it's cycle.
As I approach a car is passing me and after reading Hurst's "The Gap Effect" section I recognize this phenomena and check behind me to see where the next car is. Sure enough, it is just far enough back to allow a left turner in, but I am right in the middle between the two. Now, I know if I stop I will get stuck at the light, and I am pretty aggressive about my rights on my bike so it automatically irritates me that she is going to do exactly what I think she is going to do.
So, instead of being pavement burger, I decided to stop at the intersection. As soon as the car that had just passed me went by her she stomped on the gas and flew through her left turn without ever seeing me as I was bombing the brakes to stop in time.
A couple of questions occurred to me:
#1: Would I have noticed this if I had not read Robert's book?
I would like to think so, and would like to think that Robert just gave me a name to call this phenomena, but I am afraid I might not have.
#2. Would she have seen me if I was in the road instead of beside it.
I think she would have definitely been more likely to see me, but the reality is that with this large 5 lane road and intersection she probably would not have anyway. My fear is that if I am in the road, and I recognize this about to happen.....What happens when I bomb the brakes to stop in time? Will I then get run over by the next car behind me?
So what do you guys think?
randya
05-10-07, 11:57 AM
I think, from the photo, that's one hell of an ugly place to be riding a bicycle.
deputyjones
05-10-07, 12:01 PM
I think, from the photo, that's one hell of an ugly place to be riding a bicycle.
Yup, I have to ride through suburban, big box store, commercial area hell to get to work. It sucks.
Brian Ratliff
05-10-07, 12:08 PM
Good on you! :) Pavement burger tastes bad and you have to pick the rocks out.
closetbiker
05-10-07, 12:50 PM
Last year in Victoria a cycle commuter was struck and killed due to the "gap effect"
Apparently there was a traffic back up, and as the cyclist passed the back up on the right, a gap was opened near a drive way and the driver used this break to get into the driveway without seeing the cyclist.
Police probe death of bicyclist
Times Colonist
Victoria police will likely decide next week whether to charge a 76-year-old woman who struck and killed a cyclist on Craigflower Road Wednesday.
The collision killed 43-year-old Barbara Sheldan. The mother of five was cycling to her home in View Royal when police say the elderly driver made a left-hand turn across Craigflower into the driveway of an apartment building.
Sheldan was wearing a helmet, and her bike was equipped with front and rear lights, said police.
The vehicle struck and pinned Sheldan underneath. She later died of her injuries.
Insp. Les Sylven said traffic analysts are still reconstructing the accident and reviewing evidence.
There were also a number of witnesses whose stories— while somewhat different — are being compiled by investigators, said Sylven.
a follow up story a year later
Driver of car that killed cyclist pays $368 fine
76-year-old motorist struck and killed mother of five
Times Colonist
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The driver who struck and killed a cyclist on Craigflower Road in Esquimalt Dec. 20 has paid the fine for driving without due care and attention, and in doing so has pleaded guilty to the offence.
The charge, which falls under the Motor Vehicles Act rather than the Criminal Code, carries a fine of $368.
The 76-year-old driver, whose name has not been released, struck cyclist Barbara Sheldan, the mother of five, while turning left into a driveway. Sheldan was pinned under the vehicle and later died in hospital.
Insp. Les Sylven of Victoria police said THE DRIVER HAD STRUCK A PEDESTRIAN A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE in the West Shore.
After the Craigflower collision, police recommended the drivers licence be cancelled.
Sheldans husband, Tim, is taking legal action against the driver.
I've always been awre of this "gap effect" and even feel it goes further. Any time I don't have traffic alongside or in rear of me, I expect drivers to cut me off. Drivers cut off other drivers less often than they cut off cyclists travelling on their own.
John C. Ratliff
05-10-07, 01:01 PM
DeputyJones,
Thanks for sharing that experience. I'll be re-reading Robert's discussion on the Gap Effect tonight. And yes, recognition of these kinds of hazards is the first step in prevention of accidents. It doesn't take that much longer to stop at the light.
John
skanking biker
05-10-07, 01:23 PM
Last year in Victoria a cycle commuter was struck and killed due to the "gap effect"
Apparently there was a traffic back up, and as the cyclist passed the back up on the right, a gap was opened near a drive way and the driver used this break to get into the driveway without seeing the cyclist.
Police probe death of bicyclist
Times Colonist
Victoria police will likely decide next week whether to charge a 76-year-old woman who struck and killed a cyclist on Craigflower Road Wednesday.
The collision killed 43-year-old Barbara Sheldan. The mother of five was cycling to her home in View Royal when police say the elderly driver made a left-hand turn across Craigflower into the driveway of an apartment building.
Sheldan was wearing a helmet, and her bike was equipped with front and rear lights, said police.
The vehicle struck and pinned Sheldan underneath. She later died of her injuries.
Insp. Les Sylven said traffic analysts are still reconstructing the accident and reviewing evidence.
There were also a number of witnesses whose stories— while somewhat different — are being compiled by investigators, said Sylven.
a follow up story a year later
Driver of car that killed cyclist pays $368 fine
76-year-old motorist struck and killed mother of five
Times Colonist
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The driver who struck and killed a cyclist on Craigflower Road in Esquimalt Dec. 20 has paid the fine for driving without due care and attention, and in doing so has pleaded guilty to the offence.
The charge, which falls under the Motor Vehicles Act rather than the Criminal Code, carries a fine of $368.
The 76-year-old driver, whose name has not been released, struck cyclist Barbara Sheldan, the mother of five, while turning left into a driveway. Sheldan was pinned under the vehicle and later died in hospital.
Insp. Les Sylven of Victoria police said THE DRIVER HAD STRUCK A PEDESTRIAN A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE in the West Shore.
After the Craigflower collision, police recommended the drivers licence be cancelled.
Sheldans husband, Tim, is taking legal action against the driver.
I've always been awre of this "gap effect" and even feel it goes further. Any time I don't have traffic alongside or in rear of me, I expect drivers to cut me off. Drivers cut off other drivers less often than they cut off cyclists travelling on their own.
that is F*cking disgusting!!!!! 300 bucks for killing someone. Don't they have a manslaughter law or causing death by negligent use of an automobile??????
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 01:39 PM
So what do you guys think? I'm glad you found thinking about the "gap effect" useful in this case.
But I think the most relevant factor is that you were using what is effectively a pedestrian facility (though may very well be labeled bike or bike/ped facility), off to the right of where vehicular travel is expected, and should have been operating accordingly, especially with respect to speed. Consider what would have happened had you been a pedestrian at that intersection. Maybe she would have seen you in time to yield, maybe not, but at least you could have stopped instantly and even jumped backwards if you were on foot. Looks like a good place to cross by getting off your bike and walking it.
Is there any way you could get off the path and merge into the street before you reach the intersection, so you could go straight from the rightmost vehicular travel lane rather than through the crosswalk? Thinking about the gap effect would be just as useful, but the likelihood of her not seeing you out in the middle of the lane where she is likely paying most of her attention - especially if you're on an upright sitting taller than most cars - is much lower as compared to riding in the path and crosswalk where she is likely to be paying only cursory attention for peds, at best.
slowandsteady
05-10-07, 01:47 PM
that is F*cking disgusting!!!!! 300 bucks for killing someone. Don't they have a manslaughter law or causing death by negligent use of an automobile??????
How is that manslaughter? And how did they kill that cyclist? From what I can tell, the cyclist did a pretty good job of killing herself with her illegal actions. You pass a long line of cars on the right(illegal!), you just might get killed. You have been warned. Traffic laws are not optional and do apply to you even if you want to save a few seconds.
closetbiker
05-10-07, 01:50 PM
It's really a tragic story, but underlines the importance to be very cautious when passing on the right and going through gaps.
I found the original story and will emphasize some things. -
Woman killed in cycling accident was mother of five
Rob Shaw, Times Colonist
Published: Friday, December 22, 2006
Barbara Sheldan was the most cautious of cyclists, and she was doing
everything right as she biked her way down Craigflower Road toward her
View Royal home.
The 43-year-old mother was wearing her helmet. Her bike was equipped
with front and rear lights. She was near the curb.
But all those things did not stop a four-door Toyota from cutting a
left-hand turn across traffic and directly into her path.
She was crushed under the vehicle and later died of her injuries, say
police.
"My wife was the most cautious person," said husband, Tim Sheldan. "She
would ride on the sidewalk before she rode in a dangerous area.
"I loved her so much, she's going to leave this huge hole, and my job is
to try and fill it as best as I can for my children. The next time a
driver wants to pass a cyclist, or do something stupid, maybe they'll
think twice."
The accident happened around 4:45 p.m. Wednesday as traffic in the 800
block of Craigflower Road was bumper-to-bumper during the start of
Wednesday's rain and windstorm, said Insp. Les Sylven of Victoria
police.
Traffic had parted to let the vehicle, driven by a 76-year-old woman,
turn across the road into the driveway of an apartment building, he
said. "She thought it was safe to cross."
Her vehicle crushed and pinned Sheldan. Emergency crews could not even
start first aid until a group of about six witnesses lifted the car off
the ground, said Sylven.
"Unfortunately, as a result of the injuries she received, they weren't
able to save her life," said Sylven. "Nonetheless, we were thankful for
those people in the area who helped us."
Sheldan had "huge energy," said her husband, and she focused her
optimism and love on her family, including Michael, 15; Lizzy, 13;
Sarah, 4; Matthew, 2; and stepson Robert, 24.
She was an economist with the Ministry of Economic Development, said
Tim, himself an assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of Forests and
Range.
"She had this great smile and engaging laugh. She had a subtle sense of
humour and would sit back and revel in the joy of her family.
"Her home and her garden were her retreat. Any spare minute she'd be out
there pruning and planting."
She and Tim had both cycled home for a couple of years, he said. "I'll
be calling the biking quits because I'm the only parent these kids have
now."
He said he would like to see drivers change their attitudes to not be so
arrogant, and ignorant of cyclists.
The family gathered last night to talk about the tragedy and remember
Sheldan.
"She coached, she raised, she loved, she mentored, she did all those
things with those kids and with me," said Tim. "She had a joy for life.
"She's left behind such a massive hole in all of our lives."
Police traffic analysts were still investigating yesterday afternoon.
Sylven said it is too early to tell if charges would be laid against the
driver.
A memorial trust fund for the Sheldan children has been created in
Barbara Sheldan's name at the Royal Bank branch at Douglas Street and
Pandora Avenue. ---
There was also a follow up story in which the husband writes a tremendous letter ---
We must learn to share the road
A moment's impatience can cost a life. The few seconds saved are not worth the price
Tim Sheldan, Special to Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, January 10, 2007
I am writing to express publicly my family's sincere gratitude for the
outpouring of support, comfort and contributions from family, friends, public
and the media that we have received over the past few weeks since our beloved
wife and mother, Barbara Sheldan, was lost to us as a result of a tragic
vehicle-bicycle collision.
At the same time as expressing our thanks through our indescribable grief, I
have a message for cyclists and vehicle drivers in our community.
The right and privilege to operate a vehicle, motorized or not, comes with
significant responsibility. We pride ourselves in working toward a vision of
being a "green" community and therefore we encourage cycling as an alternative
to commuting by car.
Cyclists should not be deterred by this tragedy from continuing with their
healthy pursuit, but they need to ensure that they are following the rules of
the road and acting responsibly.
On my own bicycle commute, I have experienced daily examples of cyclists who
take risks, act aggressively or flaunt their mobility in the near presence of
automobiles. Remember, you are not invincible.
My children and I now live with that painful knowledge every day, even though my
wife took every possible precaution and was a very defensive cyclist.
On the other hand, I see many examples of motor-vehicle drivers' apparent
contempt, arrogance and ignorance of bicycle riders' rights and safety. Many are
not tolerant and close calls are all too frequent.
To the motorists -- face it, you share the road. Cycling is not a choice,
lifestyle or sport designed intentionally to irritate you, it is a legitimate
mode of transport supported by the law.
Remember, being "larger" and more powerful doesn't translate into greater
rights.
Please be as cautious and courteous to a bicycle as you would to another
motorist, since the cyclist has the right to be there.
And most of all, be tolerant, patient and pay attention. If you can't see well,
or are unsure of something, err on the side of caution -- don't take a risk with
someone else's life.
Is it that important to arrive at the next traffic light or destination 10 or 15
seconds earlier?
Let's not lose another cyclist's life in this community.
I can tell you, it just isn't worth it.
Tim Sheldan's wife Barbara died on Dec. 20 on Craigflower Road.
...Consider what would have happened had you been a pedestrian at that intersection. Maybe she would have seen you in time to yield, maybe not, but at least you could have stopped instantly and even jumped backwards if you were on foot. Looks like a good place to cross by getting off your bike and walking it...
in relasionship to the Victoria story, I wonder if being a pedestrian would have been any better. After all, as mentioned in the story that same woman had hit a pedestrian just a couple days before.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 02:17 PM
Is there any way you could get off the path and merge into the street before you reach the intersection, so you could go straight from the rightmost vehicular travel lane rather than through the crosswalk? Thinking about the gap effect would be just as useful, but the likelihood of her not seeing you out in the middle of the lane where she is likely paying most of her attention - especially if you're on an upright sitting taller than most cars - is much lower as compared to riding in the path and crosswalk where she is likely to be paying only cursory attention for peds, at best.
Agreed that sidepaths can be quite dangerous in situations like these. However, I would have to add that I have found that the gap effect exists even when you take the lane (at least in my experience). Heck, I even have left turners cut me off without the gap effect. I have personally found that vigilance was the factor that saved my butt.
So I guess I am saying that the lessons I take are:
1) if you ride in a side path, be extra careful at intersections, because drivers really aren't paying attention, especially in fast/heavy traffic.
2) even if you ride vc, watch for the gap effect, and be vigilant for left turners.
cooker
05-10-07, 02:17 PM
I think Hurst indeed deserves the credit, but I have to admit that this is a situation where Forester would have saved you too.
randya
05-10-07, 02:22 PM
but vigilance is more important than 'knowing all the rules', wouldn't you agree?
closetbiker
05-10-07, 02:28 PM
but vigilance is more important than 'knowing all the rules', wouldn't you agree?
I would because left turning cars often hit cyclists and I believe, failure to yeild right of way, is the most frequent cause cited in collisions between cars and bikes.
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 02:40 PM
in relasionship to the Victoria story, I wonder if being a pedestrian would have been any better. After all, as mentioned in the story that same woman had hit a pedestrian just a couple days before.
It's an interesting question - is it safer to cross per ped rules at ped speeds or per vehicular rules at cyclist speeds? I'm guessing regardless which is safer, they're both reasonably safe, but of course both require vigilance, as always. By the way, the requirement/expectation to be vigilant used to go without saying, but now that Hurst made it a chapter in his book, we seem to have to mention it. Don't forget to open your eyes too, and listen for cars coming from behind, look both ways, floss daily, etc.
But what DJ seemed to be contemplating -- until he remembered the gap effect -- is something else again: crossing a street according to ped rules but at cyclist speeds. I don't think that's reasonably safe.
JohnBrooking
05-10-07, 02:49 PM
I would not ride on that sidepath, I would ride in the right-most general traffic lane, and the whole way, not just approaching the intersection. Why weave off and on? You've got all those parking lots presenting plenty of right-hook opportunities to the path cyclist.
Although no one can speculate with certainty "what if", I'm sure that your chances of being seen are much increased if you are in the general traffic lane and wearing bright clothing. Also, seeing the car that has just passed you pull out a little to avoid you, as they usually will, especially if you ride out a little more to get the point across that you are going straight, should also give the opposing motorist a clue that something is happening. As you approach, if you don't see the motorist making eye contact with you, you can yell out, especially if you see any signs of his or her getting ready to move. If they do look at you, I will sometimes put out my hand, palm towards them, in a kind of "stop" or "stay away" movement, to make sure they know I don't intend to yield my right-of-way to them. It seems to get the point across.
I'm glad you read and remembered Hurst. I've got his quotes about hoarding responsibility at the top of my commuting group page on traffic safety (http://bike.meetup.com/132/pages/Traffic_Safety/). Great words.
Niles H.
05-10-07, 02:56 PM
but vigilance is more important than 'knowing all the rules', wouldn't you agree?
I've wondered about some of this quite a bit -- some people say that vigilance and common sense are really all you need.
Others study and study, they cite statistics, they come up with all kinds of conclusions and rules and principles, and give value to that approach.
Others give value to 'accident patterns' and pattern recognition.
***
It seems to me, at this point at least, that these can all have real value. They can be combined.
Too much reliance on a long list of conclusions seems a little cumbersome and mind-clogging; but that doesn't mean that the whole approach is out. It can be distilled and streamlined, and I think it can have value, if done well and followed through with.
***
Accident-pattern recognition does seem genuinely valuable. 'The right hook', 'the left cross', and others -- very valuable.
They actually seem to enhance awareness (vigilance).
***
If you had a complete 'blank slate' of pure vigilance and awareness, I'm not at all sure it would even work. We need to be able to recognize and predict, and that relies (to some extent at least) on knowing and recognizing (quickly, without a lot of delay) certain familiar patterns. Having them down, and available, and almost second-nature is valuable.
deputyjones
05-10-07, 03:12 PM
Agreed that sidepaths can be quite dangerous in situations like these. However, I would have to add that I have found that the gap effect exists even when you take the lane (at least in my experience). Heck, I even have left turners cut me off without the gap effect. I have personally found that vigilance was the factor that saved my butt.
So I guess I am saying that the lessons I take are:
1) if you ride in a side path, be extra careful at intersections, because drivers really aren't paying attention, especially in fast/heavy traffic.
2) even if you ride vc, watch for the gap effect, and be vigilant for left turners.
1) Is the way I have been riding that stretch of road. Basically, I take the responsibility upon myself to avoid other vehicles rather than riding in the road and expecting others to respect my place there only because this 1/2 mile stretch of road is INSANE! To the south on the pic is the entrance to a Wally-World Supercenter, just east of there is a major divided highway and just east of that is a mall and outlet center entrance. It is also curbed through that entire stretch. Lots of soccer mom's on their cell phones yelling at the kids and reaching into the back seat to pass sippie cups :rolleyes:
I have been contemplating lately just taking the right lane like you, HH and others have recommended when I enter that stretch and just toughing it out through there. That type of VC riding in that environment takes some experience and confidence which I have been building. I think I will try that next time.
noisebeam
05-10-07, 03:16 PM
I would because left turning cars often hit cyclists and I believe, failure to yeild right of way, is the most frequent cause cited in collisions between cars and bikes.
I'd say between vehicles - at least in urban/suburban areas.
The left cross failure to yield accident is very common where I live. Of the dozen or so post-collision scenes I've witnessed so far this year all of them were left turn failure to yield collisions.
Al
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 03:22 PM
I've wondered about some of this quite a bit -- some people say that vigilance and common sense are really all you need.
Others study and study, they cite statistics, they come up with all kinds of conclusions and rules and principles, and give value to that approach.
Others give value to 'accident patterns' and pattern recognition.
***
It seems to me, at this point at least, that these can all have real value. They can be combined.
Too much reliance on a long list of conclusions seems a little cumbersome and mind-clogging; but that doesn't mean that the whole approach is out. It can be distilled and streamlined, and I think it can have value, if done well and followed through with.
***
Accident-pattern recognition does seem genuinely valuable. 'The right hook', 'the left cross', and others -- very valuable.
They actually seem to enhance awareness (vigilance).
***
If you had a complete 'blank slate' of pure vigilance and awareness, I'm not at all sure it would even work. We need to be able to recognize and predict, and that relies (to some extent at least) on knowing and recognizing (quickly, without a lot of delay) certain familiar patterns. Having them down, and available, and almost second-nature is valuable. :beer:
This is what I tried to discuss in a thread entitled Obeying the rules and viglance (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=286226) early last month.
The OP:
The reason I'm having this poll is to start a discussion about an issue over which I have a disagreement with Robert Hurst [1] [2] and Brian Ratliff [3] [4].
What is the relationship between obeying the rules of the road, and being vigilant?
I think we can all agree that you can be vigilant even when not obeying the rules. Arguably, you have to be more vigilant when not obeying the rules...
But can you obey the rules without being vigilant? I don't see how. For example, you might be able to pass a driver's test, or the LCI road test, without being vigilant, but can you get a score of 100%?
If you're not paying attention, it seems to me you're much more likely to overlook a stop sign, drift out of your lane, not see the pedestrian (and violate their right of way), use incorrect lane positioning, etc., than if you are being vigilant and trying to obey the rules. Obeying the rules requires knowing the rules, and when which ones apply. Understanding why which rules apply when is a great help too. Knowing and following the rules also helps you discern where you should be paying the most attention at any given time: in particular following the rules puts you in a position to better recognize when someone else is not following the rules.
All of these considerations combined convinces me that following the rules requires vigilance; that it is impossible to follow the rules (consistently) without being vigilant.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
zeytoun
05-10-07, 03:28 PM
1) Is the way I have been riding that stretch of road. Basically, I take the responsibility upon myself to avoid other vehicles rather than riding in the road and expecting others to respect my place there only because this 1/2 mile stretch of road is INSANE! To the south on the pic is the entrance to a Wally-World Supercenter, just east of there is a major divided highway and just east of that is a mall and outlet center entrance. It is also curbed through that entire stretch. Lots of soccer mom's on their cell phones yelling at the kids and reaching into the back seat to pass sippie cups
I have been contemplating lately just taking the right lane like you, HH and others have recommended when I enter that stretch and just toughing it out through there. That type of VC riding in that environment takes some experience and confidence which I have been building. I think I will try that next time.
Deputy Jones, I actually didn't recommend that you take the lane. A 45mph zone near a mall with a NOL and no bike lane/shoulder and a curb is not something that I would look forward to. In fact, I tend to avoid areas that would force me into this sort of choice. I would have to see the road in action, and try it myself to see what it is like. And you have to do what you think is safe. :)
All I said was that if you take the bikepath, be extra careful (treating each intersection as a yield/stop is my modus operandi in this situation). And if you take the lane, don't imagine that you are immune to being left-hooked.
But if you decide to take the lane, please tell us how it compares. We hope that it works out well.
deputyjones
05-10-07, 03:41 PM
Deputy Jones, I actually didn't recommend that you take the lane. A 45mph zone near a mall with a NOL and no bike lane/shoulder and a curb is not something that I would look forward to. In fact, I tend to avoid areas that would force me into this sort of choice. I would have to see the road in action, and try it myself to see what it is like. And you have to do what you think is safe. :)
All I said was that if you take the bikepath, be extra careful (treating each intersection as a yield/stop is my modus operandi in this situation). And if you take the lane, don't imagine that you are immune to being left-hooked.
But if you decide to take the lane, please tell us how it compares. We hope that it works out well.
Yeah, ok. Will do. Just to clarify. That area is curbed with pretty thin lanes and driveways everywhere. I think the only way to ride in the roadway safely would be to take the lane, but either way I will try it in the road and let you guys know how it turns out.
There is the intersection I was at. 45 MPH speed limit and the 2 w/b lanes of James St. turn into one just outside the picture to the west. North is up on the map, and I was riding westbound along the side path/bike path on the north side of the road. Approaching the intersection I see a young gal in a car waiting in the middle turn lane to turn from e/b James to n/b Van Ommen and she is inching forward because the light is late in it's cycle.
As I approach a car is passing me and after reading Hurst's "The Gap Effect" section I recognize this phenomena and check behind me to see where the next car is. Sure enough, it is just far enough back to allow a left turner in, but I am right in the middle between the two. Now, I know if I stop I will get stuck at the light, and I am pretty aggressive about my rights on my bike so it automatically irritates me that she is going to do exactly what I think she is going to do.
So, instead of being pavement burger, I decided to stop at the intersection. As soon as the car that had just passed me went by her she stomped on the gas and flew through her left turn without ever seeing me as I was bombing the brakes to stop in time.
A couple of questions occurred to me:
#1: Would I have noticed this if I had not read Robert's book?
I would like to think so, and would like to think that Robert just gave me a name to call this phenomena, but I am afraid I might not have.
#2. Would she have seen me if I was in the road instead of beside it.
I think she would have definitely been more likely to see me, but the reality is that with this large 5 lane road and intersection she probably would not have anyway. My fear is that if I am in the road, and I recognize this about to happen.....What happens when I bomb the brakes to stop in time? Will I then get run over by the next car behind me?
So what do you guys think?
She may very well not have seen you, wherever you had been. There is another thread that touches on some of this, http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=296486
***
Your quick recognition of the danger of the situation was probably facilitated by prior familiarization with the gap effect. Thanks for sharing this. It has motivated me to learn to recognize accident patterns and principles (esp. the major and most common ones, but some of the rest as well) more quickly. --I have found that I can read these things without 'learning' them in the right way. It has to be quickly-functional learning, it seems to me. It has to be right there at your fingertips, so to speak -- and not somewhere at the back of one's mind, where it takes time to retrieve. Quick, natural, intuitive recognition seems key.
***
You seem to pose the issue of whether you are better off in the lane or on the path.
Statistics can be misleading. A person who is very aware (and very careful) of the dangers of intersections can ride a bike path with a much lower probability of collisions, than a person who is oblivious of the (high level of) danger(s) associated with the intersections.
***
You mention wanting to take your rights at the light. Since you asked for feedback, I will tell you that this strikes me as a dangerous tendency. Better to back off and swallow your cyclist's-rights-pride. Collisions with motor vehicles can really, really, really hurt.
Motor vehicles may not be involved in or responsible for the majority of the 'casualties' cyclists experience (or get themselves into -- it is rarely if ever a completely passive 'experience' -- something that happens outside of the cyclist's sphere of responsibility and choices); but they are involved in most of the fatalities.
***
('safety first' should not be displaced by or in competition with 'rights first'....)
zeytoun
05-10-07, 03:57 PM
HH, just to clarify, when in your vigilance OP you said that following the rules intrinsically requires vigilance, were you also saying that understanding the rules intrinsically requires accident pattern recognition?
Also, by rules, were you referring to the rules of the road or a set of defensive driving rules?
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 04:04 PM
HH, just to clarify, when in your vigilance OP you said that following the rules intrinsically requires vigilance, were you also saying that understanding the rules intrinsically requires accident pattern recognition? Well, I didn't specifically use the words "accident pattern recognition" to refer to the concept, but the concept, to me, is implied with "understanding why which rules apply when" and "knowing and following the rules also helps you discern where you should be paying the most attention at any given time: in particular following the rules puts you in a position to better recognize when someone else is not following the rules".
Edit: I should add that I really like the term "accident pattern recognition" and am likely to incorporate it into my rhetoric.
Also, by rules, were you referring to the rules of the road or a set of defensive driving rules? By rules I mean the general rules that follow from the basic principles of vehicular travel, upon which the legal rules of the road are based, taking into account the operational and physical characteristics of the vehicle being operated. To me this includes defensive driving rules. In short, for bicycle riding, it means "VC rules".
zeytoun
05-10-07, 04:11 PM
By rules I mean the general rules that follow from the basic principles of vehicular travel, upon which the legal rules of the road are based, taking into account the operational and physical characteristics of the vehicle being operated. To me this includes defensive driving rules. In short, for bicycle riding, it means "VC rules".
So, when you say rules, you are referring the paradigm under which you cycle, including, but not limited to, the codified law, the informal rules and practices of the local traffic, defensive driving rules, and VC rules. Am I correct?
Also, by VC rules, do you mean strict VC as you have outlined it in this forum, the ideas of Forester in Effective Cycling, or more general vehicular cycling principals?
Nate1952
05-10-07, 04:12 PM
In answer to your questions:
1) I think most riders figure it out after awhile. It's interesting how the nomenclature develops. I don't have a term for the "naked" condition where I do not have motorized traffic on my left, protecting me. But I use the term "companions" for vehicles which are accompanying me through an intersection, not turning, and shielding me from other vehicles waiting to turn left.
2) She would have seen you, but maybe not in time. The situation you are describing is one of the classic motorcycle accident scenarios and accounts for the majority of motorcycle fatalities. It's worthwhile to remember that motorists are scanning for shapes which are "low" and "wide". This makes it difficult for motorcyles and bicycles to get the kind of recognition they deserve as legal vehicles.
You did exactly the right thing.
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 04:21 PM
So, when you say rules, you are referring the paradigm under which you cycle, including, but not limited to, the codified law, the informal rules and practices of the local traffic, defensive driving rules, and VC rules. Am I correct?
Also, by VC rules, do you mean strict VC as you have outlined it in this forum, the ideas of Forester in Effective Cycling, or more general vehicular cycling principals?
I'm surprised you refer to "strict VC as you have outlined it in this forum". The only place I've outlined "strict VC" is in the OP of the "Some definitions thread", and, if you read that, I think you would know that I couldn't possibly be referring to that.
But, by "VC rules" I mean those rules that follow from the 5 main traffic principles outlined in EC.
A good summary online, ironically, can be found in Chapter 4 of Jeffrey Hiles' critique of Forester:
If there was required reading to participate on this forum, that would be part of it.
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 04:34 PM
In answer to your questions:
1) I think most riders figure it out after awhile. It's interesting how the nomenclature develops. I don't have a term for the "naked" condition where I do not have motorized traffic on my left, protecting me. But I use the term "companions" for vehicles which are accompanying me through an intersection, not turning, and shielding me from other vehicles waiting to turn left.
YES! We need a term for this! Naked is good. Companion is good. Shielding is good. When riding in lanes wide enough to be safely shared, mirrors are great for managing the situation as it changes from "shielded by companion" to "naked". With a mirror, you can see the "stripping gap" approaching, and can be ready to look back and start merging left while being passed by the last car before the gap. That way the time you're hanging out naked, unshielded, to the right of normal traffic, is reduced to practically nil.
Of course, if you're riding on sidepath you have no option to move left.
Also, in this case, the deputy seems to indicate that the outside lane is too narrow to share and so controlling the lane is more appropriate.
2) She would have seen you, but maybe not in time. The situation you are describing is one of the classic motorcycle accident scenarios and accounts for the majority of motorcycle fatalities. It's worthwhile to remember that motorists are scanning for shapes which are "low" and "wide". This makes it difficult for motorcyles and bicycles to get the kind of recognition they deserve as legal vehicles.
Well, the big difference between motorcycles and bicycles operated vehicularly is usually motorcycles are traveling significantly faster, so they have to be noticed and accounted for when they're still considerably further away than bicyclists.
And noticing a cyclist on a sidepath is much harder than noticing a cycling in a normal oncoming lane.
What used to be needless to say: vigilance is still required for those cases where despite wearing bright clothing and being positioned conspicuously, they still won't see you.
You did exactly the right thing.
Given where he was riding, on the sidepath, I agree.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 04:45 PM
I'm surprised you refer to "strict VC as you have outlined it in this forum". The only place I've outlined "strict VC" is in the OP of the "Some definitions thread", and, if you read that, I think you would know that I couldn't possibly be referring to that.
It was just a question.
Do you follow these "rules" yourself?
zeytoun
05-10-07, 04:49 PM
YES! We need a term for this! Naked is good. Companion is good. Shielding is good. When riding in lanes wide enough to be safely shared, mirrors are great for managing the situation as it changes from "shielded by companion" to "naked".
Thanks a lot Nate, for giving HH a vehicular chubb (new term!).
HH, by Shielding, are you referring to riding side-by-side with a car to protect you from other traffic?
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 04:52 PM
It was just a question.
Well, you've used "Strict VC" before. In case you haven't looked it up, here's what I wrote about it:
Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, always taking the lane, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc. There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.
So when I see the term "Strict VC", that's what I assume it means. So if you mean something different by it, let me know.
Do you follow these "rules" yourself?
Yep, with about the same strict adherence as I do when I drive a car. In other words, sure I roll a stop now and then...
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 05:04 PM
Thanks a lot Nate, for giving HH a vehicular chubb (new term!).
HH, by Shielding, are you referring to riding side-by-side with a car to protect you from other traffic?
Almost. "Riding side-by-side with a car" implies a cyclist riding side-by-side with a car at about the same speed, staying side-by-side. That's not what I mean.
What I mean is riding in a wide lane to the side of a stream of "shielding" faster passing car traffic. And what they "shield" you from is traffic pulling out from the right as well as crossing from the left (including oncoming left-turners), which is why it's important to move left when the last car in the shield passed you, to increase you sight lines, buffer space and conspicuity when the shield is gone.
Of course, at any place where a right turn can be made, the "shield" becomes a potential hazard, which is why I usually negotiate and merge left into the stream at most intersection approaches. The exception is when the speeds are so high that a right turn is no possible, but, again, in those cases you have to watch for the car approaching from behind who suddenly start slowing down (the gap in front of it starts growing) - that's a red flag to negotiate/merge left. It's all part of "accident pattern recogntion".
zeytoun
05-10-07, 05:18 PM
Well, you've used "Strict VC" before. In case you haven't looked it up, here's what I wrote about it:
I'm not questioning your definitions, I was clarifying which terms you meant. You VC definitions OP had so many terms, it was a little confusing in that post whether by VC you meant broad things that including other things like AVC, BVC, and strict VC. So I wanted you to clarify.
I was also confused because you once strictly defined VC (as opposed to defined Strict VC) as below:
If you use the more strict definition (VC means ignoring bike-specific laws), then that simply means that when you're riding in a bike lane you're not riding VC (unless you're doing it in a situation where all vehicle drivers are allowed to be in the bike lane, such as when approaching a right turn).
And I wanted to make sure whether this was a definition of Strict VC, or a strict definition of VC.
Also, when did I use Strict VC before?
And is something like passing traffic on the right in the bike lane VC?
EDIT: Just to clarify, in one summary of VC vs Non-VC practices (not Strict VC, mind you) it listed as non-VC the two following things:
-ignoring the first come, first served principle (while a traffic light is red, moving to the front of the traffic line instead of taking one's place in line)
-Passing slow or stopped traffic on the right.
And I know that you previously confessed:
I do still pass traffic in bike lanes on the right on occasion, but traveling much slower than I did before I learned VC.
and I wondered if you still do that.
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 05:31 PM
You quoted a definition of a "more strict" definition of VC that, frankly, I know of only one person who uses that (he never rides in bike lanes). Anyway, I just wanted to be clear about what you meant when you used it.
I thought you used Strict VC in the last few days, but maybe I confused you with someone else. Does it matter?
In some situations passing on the right is illegal, but I don't think VC says anything against passing on the right in the bike lane or not, per se, as long as it is done with due caution, which in that case, means riding slowly and carefully - vigilantly (of course). The underlying principle is "faster traffic is to the left". The derived rules are "don't pass on the right (in some circumstances)" and "if you do pass on the right, due it slowly and carefully".
I think a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist is knowing when what situations are particularly dangerous and why, and acting accordingly. For example, riding near door zones, intersection crossings when on side paths, passing on the right, approaching any intersection, etc.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 05:39 PM
but I don't think VC says anything against passing on the right in the bike lane or not, per se
Right, VC means you ignore the bike lane. If you happen to be riding in it because it's a safe area, then fine, but the lane doesn't dictate your position. So the rules of VC don't change whether there is a lane or not. Is it VC, then to pass stopped traffic on the right by splitting a WOL?
deputyjones
05-10-07, 05:42 PM
***
You mention wanting to take your rights at the light. Since you asked for feedback, I will tell you that this strikes me as a dangerous tendency. Better to back off and swallow your cyclist's-rights-pride. Collisions with motor vehicles can really, really, really hurt.
Motor vehicles may not be involved in or responsible for the majority of the 'casualties' cyclists experience (or get themselves into -- it is rarely if ever a completely passive 'experience' -- something that happens outside of the cyclist's sphere of responsibility and choices); but they are involved in most of the fatalities.
***
('safety first' should not be displaced by or in competition with 'rights first'....)
Thanks Niles, and you are right I was correct in swallowing my pride and stopping, though I hated to do so. In fact, to make it even more enticing there was one of my boys-in-brown behind this lady when this happened. So I quickly had to scan through my available options of somehow getting this lady a ticket for not giving me my right-of-way and decided ultimately there was no way to do that without getting whacked which, of course, would have sucked much worse then her $90.00.
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 05:46 PM
Right, VC means you ignore the bike lane. If you happen to be riding in it because it's a safe area, then fine, but the lane doesn't dictate your position. So the rules of VC don't change whether there is a lane or not. Is it VC, then to pass stopped traffic on the right by splitting a WOL?
In some situations passing on the right is illegal, but I don't think VC says anything against passing on the right per se, as long as it is done with due caution, which in that case, means riding slowly and carefully - vigilantly (of course). The underlying principle is "faster traffic is to the left". The derived rules are "don't pass on the right (in some circumstances)" and "if you do pass on the right, due it slowly and carefully".
I think a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist is knowing when what situations are particularly dangerous and why, and acting accordingly. For example, riding near door zones, intersection crossings when on side paths, passing on the right, approaching any intersection, etc.
(if this sounds familiar, it is, but you basically asked the same question, so essentially the same answer applied)
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 05:49 PM
Thanks Niles, and you are right I was correct in swallowing my pride and stopping, though I hated to do so. In fact, to make it even more enticing there was one of my boys-in-brown behind this lady when this happened. So I quickly had to scan through my available options of somehow getting this lady a ticket for not giving me my right-of-way and decided ultimately there was no way to do that without getting whacked which, of course, would have sucked much worse then her $90.00. Not to mention the morality of blaming someone for correctly focusing where she is supposed to be looking: oncoming lanes, and, hopefully/possibly, for pedestrians. To expect her to also remember to look for a 15 mph cyclist zooming off a sidepath into the crosswalk is stretching it, I think.
I mean, it's great if she remembers, but if I was on the jury the DA would have a hell of time convincing me of finding her guilty of very much.
deputyjones
05-10-07, 05:49 PM
Not to mention the morality of blaming someone for correctly focusing where she is supposed to be looking: oncoming lanes, and, hopefully/possibly, for pedestrians. To expect her to also remember to look for a 15 mph cyclist zooming off a sidepath into the crosswalk is stretching it, I think.
Yeah? Good luck arguing that one in court.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 05:50 PM
Ok, so there is nothing about passing on the right in a WOL or bike lane, per se, except to do so cautiously and safely.
However, in California, at least, you wouldn't pass on the right by riding on the shoulder. Correct?
21755. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 05:59 PM
I thought you used Strict VC in the last few days, but maybe I confused you with someone else. Does it matter?
I found the quote I think you are referring to. I guess I should have included a smiley....
My only problem is that it seems to me that you are a fanatic VCer, as opposed to a reasonable VCer like me. I'm also not a big fan of the way VCers all do that silly power swerve to announce their presence to the cars. It seems like there is too much import placed on looking silly to get attention, and the idea of being vigilant is entirely ignored in the VC paradigm.
Also, you don't define "Strict VC"
I don't want to be called Strict VC, because it sounds a little... you know.. but I definitely consider myself a zealous VC advocate, because I have an ardent fire burning within me to preach the word.
I guess I thought you would guess that I was joking, since you had just said:
A VC contrarian is one who opposes VC for no apparent rational reason. Tactics typically used by VC contrarians to oppose the advocacy, philosophy and sometimes even the practices of VC include:
Portraying a practioner or advocate of VC as a practioner or advocate of Strict VC.
Misrepresenting the smooth and orderly lateral movements of VC as swerving.
Mischaracterizing VC as relying entirely on obeying the rules and ignoring the importance of paying attention and being vigilant.And I accused you of being a fanatic VCer, called your lateral movement "swerving", and accused you of ignoring vigilance...
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 06:01 PM
Yeah? Good luck arguing that one in court.
Well, that's why I said "morality", to differentiate from "legality".
Legal is legal, and more is moral; the twain shall meet only once in a while.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 06:06 PM
Well, that's why I said "morality", to differentiate from "legality".
Legal is legal, and more is moral; the twain shall meet only once in a while.
Deputy Jones meant arguing the morality of it in court. Just like when you were refering to the morality the DA would be arguing while you were a juror.
deputyjones
05-10-07, 06:06 PM
I mean, it's great if she remembers, but if I was on the jury the DA would have a hell of time convincing me of finding her guilty of very much.
Good thing you are in CA with the rest of the fruits and nuts :D
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 06:07 PM
Ok, so there is nothing about passing on the right in a WOL or bike lane, per se, except to do so cautiously and safely.
However, in California, at least, you wouldn't pass on the right by riding on the shoulder. Correct? Sure I might. 21755 only applies to drivers of motor vehicles, and shoulder riding by cyclists is expressly allowed by 21650.1.
Bicycle Operated on Roadway or Highway Shoulder
21650.1. A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21650_1.htm
Lot of questions today...
EDIT:
Also 21650 allows shoulder use as well.
Right Side of Roadway
21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: (a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement.
(b) When placing a vehicle in a lawful position for, and when the vehicle is lawfully making, a left turn.
(c) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic under construction or repair.
(d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(e) When the roadway is not of sufficient width.
(f) When the vehicle is necessarily traveling so slowly as to impede the normal movement of traffic, that portion of the highway adjacent to the right edge of the roadway may be utilized temporarily when in a condition permitting safe operation.
(g) This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on any shoulder of a highway, where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21650.htm
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 06:12 PM
Deputy Jones meant arguing the morality of it in court. Just like when you were refering to the morality the DA would be arguing while you were a juror. Well, I'm a little bit lost in this part of the discussion, but in case it matters, I'm a huge believer in jury nullification.
I feel the jury is the last chance for justice in cases where technically/legally the accused is guilty, but not morally.
zeytoun
05-10-07, 06:15 PM
Lot of questions today...
I'm trying hard to get it, but it is confusing for me, after all. And I'm trying to improve myself. I have an ardent fire to be a right VC advocate.
What is the VC stance on this Shoulder situation, since cars are prohibited from passing by entering the shoulder, and the shoulder, while not technically defined in California law, is not legally part of the roadway, and bicycles are expressly allowed to ride on the shoulder?
Does that make riding on the Shoulder non-VC?
Helmet Head
05-10-07, 06:18 PM
I'm trying hard to get it, but it is confusing for me, after all. And I'm trying to improve myself. I have an ardent fire to be a right VC advocate.
What is the VC stance on this Shoulder situation, since cars are prohibited from passing by entering the shoulder, and the shoulder, while not technically defined in California law, is not legally part of the roadway, and bicycles are expressly allowed to ride on the shoulder?
Does that make riding on the Shoulder non-VC?
Use of the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass is definitely VC.
Using the shoulder to pass stopped traffic is simply a special case of passing on the right - do it slowly and carefully.
See post 47. I added another pertinent law reference.