It was at 2 or 3 places on my commute
Ahhhh.

"Paying attention does not mean paying attention to everything.
Paying attention means paying attention to what is relevant.
Whether a bike lane stripe is dashed or solid makes absolutely no difference to me, so I don't pay attention to it (even less so than I realized, thanks to Pete). That's a good thing, because it means I'm paying more attention to that which is relevant."
Right. The entire context above is WHILE RIDING and considering what is and is not relevant TO MY RIDING.

But, like I said hours ago, just because I usually don't notice what others are wearing, sometimes I do.
And just because striping is irrelevant to me, and I don't pay attention to it (in order to decide where to ride) sometime I do notice it.
Particularly if I'm slowing down or stopped for a light and there isn't much stuff to pay attention to at the moment.

Ahhhh.
While I don't have any specific memories of it, it seems to me I've noticed dashed sections that appear to be much less than 100' all over San Diego.

Do you mean TX?

UT = University of Texas. I kept getting confused myself when I'd see "UT" and automatically think "Utah." I've seen it more often referred to as the "UT study" than the "university of Texas study" so for search purposes I've tried to be consistent.

UT = University of Texas. I kept getting confused myself when I'd see "UT" and automatically think "Utah." I've seen it more often referred to as the "UT study" than the "university of Texas study" so for search purposes I've tried to be consistent.
:roflmao:

Thanks for straightening that out!

[Concept in writer's mind] -> (translation into written word) -> [written word] -> (translation into read word) -> [concept in reader's mind]

Therefore, there are two points of possible error due to translation that can lead to misunderstanding, and stuff "not making sense".


You have got to be kidding me man - you take yourself WAY too seriously :eek:

No, I'm not kidding. And it has nothing to do with. It's inherent in all forums like this between all people.

Think of some house that you know with a front yard that has a living object with bark and needles on it.
You now have a concept of that living object in your mind.
Now, with words, consider trying to convey that concept to others.
You can write "tree", but what does that convey to others?
You can write "pine tree", and that helps, but it's still not conveying the particulate concept you have in mind with much accuracy.
And that's with respect to something physical.

With abstract concepts it's arguably even more difficult.

It's important to keep those two points of possible error due to translation in mind whether writing or reading.
It's less of an issue when talking to someone on the phone, because there you can hear changes in tone, and it's easier to stop someone when something is misunderstood, to ask for clarification. When in person it's even better, because we can see each other facial expressions and body language. In this forum we have none of that. So it's very easy to misunderstand, to grasp a concept that was not conveyed, or convey a concept that you did not have in mind.

We have to work together to minimize the impact of those translation errors.

Think of some house that you know with a front yard that has a living object with bark and needles on it.
Ok, some kind of dog/porcupine hybrid....

That's easy
It's a

Porcupog!!!

(or a dogupine)

Earlier, for context:



[Concept in writer's mind] -> (translation into written word) -> [written word] -> (translation into read word) -> [concept in reader's mind]

Therefore, there are two points of possible error due to translation that can lead to misunderstanding, and stuff "not making sense".



Think of some house that you know with a front yard that has a living object with bark and needles on it.
...
You can write "tree", but what does that convey to others?
You can write "pine tree", and that helps, but it's still not conveying the particulate concept you have in mind with much accuracy.
Headspeak™ response:

Are you sure your dog needs acupuncture? Thank you. You make my point. There are many possible meanings to the same exact words, depending on context.

Actually, you make an additional point too.
That second point of translation is not only a place where interpretation error can occur, but intentional misinterpretion, as Pete has illustrated here, can occur there too.

Also, the first point of translation can also be used disingenuously, by intentionally using ambiguous language, and then insisting on different interpretations of those same words later.

I try to reduce the chances of this happening by using precise language, referring to references like the vehicular cycling article at Wikipedia and meaning/clarification threads I've created here, but it is practically impossible to avoid using language that can be inadvertently or intentionally misinterpreted. Some people, like Pete and Chipcom, like to childlishly take advantage of this to discredit others.

Yet you are the one that is having to constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify what you intended to communicate.

I don't see this happening with others.

I wonder why?

Because HH isn't a part of the "cool" group? Your guess is as good as mine. I have no problems figuring out what anybody on this forum means after asking a few questions, allowing them to clarify, and assuming good faith in what they are saying. You seem to have more issues with what Serge says than anyone else on the forum. Why is that?

Why Serge, is that one of your precious ad hominem attacks right there? Should I "pull a Serge" and whine about forum guidelines at this point?

I'll just sit back and chuckle at your hypocrisy again instead.

Are you taking your discussion of bike lane stripes with HH seriously or are you just poking fun? If you are just poking fun, you are being childish and HH's comment is justified.

Again, I'm not a cognitive scientist, but, as I understand it, relevancy, with respect to whether one consciously notices something or not, is determined subconsciously. But there is a feedback loop.

The only feedback loop I see at the moment is me asking a question and you not answering. Once again, if you don't notice something, how can you decide if it is relevant or not?

Thanks JJ, I was tempted to respond to the sophist again, but now I'm not.

So you just decided to chime in just to call him a name. Nice, Mr. Respect and Honesty. :rolleyes:

Yet you are the one that is having to constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify what you intended to communicate.

I don't see this happening with others.

I wonder why? Many possible reasons, including:
absurd number of posts I have (more chance for errors).
controversy of my positions - in particular challenging the value of "sacred cow" of facility advocates
lack of tact on my part
lack of willingness to really try to understand what I'm saying due to all of the above
lack of my ability to write clearly
relative complexity of the concepts I'm trying to convey as compared to others
folks having fun playing sophistic games with me
lack of assuming good faith
I'm an engineer and tend to think/like write like oneIn support of reasons 2, 4, 7, 8 above is the fact that my alleged need to have to "constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify" happens to be only for folks who have exhibited animosity towards me. Folks like JoeJack, Galen, Daily Commute, Mr. Forester, noisebeam and others seems to have very little trouble understanding exactly what I mean without any need for clarification. The UT (Utah/University of Texas) miscommunciation between JJ and myself today was a rare exception. If they can understand what I mean, why can't you???

Why Serge, is that one of your precious ad hominem attacks right there? Should I "pull a Serge" and whine about forum guidelines at this point?

I'll just sit back and chuckle at your hypocrisy again instead. Pete,

An ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit someone's argument by discrediting their character instead of the argument.

Accusing me of "having to constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify" is not an ad hominem attack.
Similarly, accusing you of childlishly taking advantage of the fact that words can be easily misinterpreted to discredit others is not an ad hominem attack.
Both are statements about what the other honestly believes to be true about the other's behavior on this forum.

HH

I didn't notice that pink flamingo just like I didn't notice the fountain in the middle of the flower bed because it's not going anywhere and thus is irrelevant to my safety while cycling in the road. Now, if kids were playing baseball near the road, I'd probably take notice just in case a ball was struck towards me. I might even look right at the flamingo they are using as third base and still not notice it because it's that irrelevant.

So how do you know there is a pink flamingo or a fountain if you didn't notice it? Come on, JJ, just because HH has a problem with being observant doesn't mean you have to follow his lead. You can admit that you notice lots of 'irrelevant' things on your route, I promise, he won't bite you.

The point is simple, but you both seem scared to death to accept it - you can't determine relevancy if you don't notice something in the first place. If you can, please explain how you do it. Tarot cards maybe?

By "ignoring" honks I think I usually if not always mean (I can't recall every context where I said this right now) not getting upset by it; not letting it bug me. I do try to always acknowledge a honk by looking, smiling, conveying "huh?", nodding, waving, signalling, etc., whatever is appropriate.

You seem to have a lot of memory problems today. You been smoking dope?

I don't know. That's your assumption so you should be the one with the answer, right?

I can answer it, but it's just my opinion so I figured I'd go to the source. You tend to prey on foolish statements (I've seen you post in the MTB forum) or in the case of HH, what you perceive to be or intentionally misinterpret as foolish statements. I can't figure out if it's the former of the latter with HH but I'm leaning towards the latter if for no other reason than I don't see the foolishness in his statements whereas I have seen it in others that you've jumped on.

Yes I'm being serious and I thought your pink flamingo example was just as silly as some of the things that Mr. Head has posted.

chipcom- "Again, if you don't pay attention to everything - especially things out of the ordinary, in your environment, how do you determine what is relevant and not relevant?"

you- "Because the pink flamingo isn't going to jump out into the road in front of me. "

you- "I didn't notice that pink flamingo just like I didn't notice the fountain in the middle of the flower bed because it's not going anywhere"

How do you know there's a flamingo there, let alone a pink one, if you don't pay attention? You noticed it, therefore you paid attention to it.

You missed this comment by Chip:

"I am serious. You mean to tell me that things about your commute route, 'relevant' or not, don't stick in your mind? That goofy looking tree, that house with the pink flamingo out front, the home with the blue lawn, the cherry trees in that park that look so beautiful in the spring, the place where the paint has been worn off the fog line for the last year, the car that passes you every morning with the garfield doll hangning on the side window, etc. etc. etc? If not, I'd have to question your frequency in commuting too."

Apparently, if I don't notice what kind of yard ornaments I pass on my way to work, I must not really commute too often. He's confusing the act of seeing something somewhere in my field of view with actually taking notice of something.

The last time I was honked at was in March, and I wrote about it here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=280800

Isn't this special. He can recall a honk, something else he claims to ignore, clear back from March, yet can't remember some bike lane stripes, that he claims are far from the norm, on his own commute route. The self-pwning grows with every post!

So how do you know there is a pink flamingo or a fountain if you didn't notice it? Come on, JJ, just because HH has a problem with being observant doesn't mean you have to follow his lead. You can admit that you notice lots of 'irrelevant' things on your route, I promise, he won't bite you.

The point is simple, but you both seem scared to death to accept it - you can't determine relevancy if you don't notice something in the first place. If you can, please explain how you do it. Tarot cards maybe?

I do notice lots of irrelevant things on my commute but they are far outnumbered by the number of relevant things I see on my commute. I've never claimed otherwise. I will claim that while something might be in my field of view, my mind will often filter it out if it's not relevant and thus I won't actually take notice of it. If you see a car inching towards the road from a driveway passing behind by a mailbox with a house number on it, which of the following will you remember afterwards:

1. the make and model of the car
2. whether the driver was male/female (neglecting hotties driving convertibles in sports bras)
3. that a car was inching towards the road from a dirveway
4. the house number on the mailbox

The only feedback loop I see at the moment is me asking a question and you not answering. Once again, if you don't notice something, how can you decide if it is relevant or not? The question cannot be answered without clarifying the meaning of "notice" and "decide if it is relevant" with respect to conscious and subconscious processing in the mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "notice", but I try to remember to use the verb "notice" to refer only to the processing of the conscious mind: in particular, to mean "pay attention consciously". I think I'm pretty consistent with that usage in this forum. For example, that's what I mean when I say I like to use lane positioning to get motorists to "notice" me: I mean I'm trying to snap them out of "auto pilot" and get their conscious minds to pay attention to me.

Now, "decide if it is relevant" has meaning both consciously and subconsciously. I can decide while sitting at my desk that something, in general, is relevant or not. Those are concepts I integrate into my mind. Once that is accomplished, while riding, my subconscious mind can "decide if it is relevant'" based on various criteria, including concepts I have integrated into my mind while sitting at my desk.

With that in mind, I can answer your question.

You can decide if something is relevant or not without noticing it by:

a) consciously deciding it is not relevant in general while at your desk, and having that concept integrated into your mind
b) in real-time, having your subconscious mind decide a specific instance of that something is not relevant, perhaps because of concepts integrated via (a), and, so, not alerting your conscious mind to it, thus you (consciously) don't "notice" it.

Edit: This is an example of something probably the contrarians will claim requires "clarifiation", etc., while those who have no animosity for me will probably have little trouble understanding it.

Some people, like Pete and Chipcom, like to childlishly take advantage of this to discredit others.

Yeah, I am a big meanie for tearing apart your wacky and often contradictory words that call into question your credibility to be giving anyone direction concerning cycling. It was just a big ruse when I called Pete for posting your pic (not to mention the other times I have come to your defense)...just to throw everyone off the scent. You are a freakin looney toon sometimes, HH.

Serge, calling someone "childish" is a character attack, even if you try to hide behind a claim that you were "only" attacking their argument. What attributes are you assigning to the person who made the argument after all?
Well, the attributes of a child, of course. Which is what you are, correct?

Correct. If I had written that you "moronically have to constantly clarify, re-clarify and re-re-clarify" then it would be ad hominem. Fair enough.

you better start learning to pay attention to everything. THAT is the mark of an experienced transportational cyclist.. No one can do that. If you think you can, you're fooling yourself, and probably paying attention to stuff that you should not be paying attention to, like whether the bike lane stripe is dashed or solid.

when I called Pete for posting your pic
Thank you for that, by the way.

Gotta go. I'm outta here for a few days. Be careful out there!

The question cannot be answered without clarifying the meaning of "notice" and "decide if it is relevant" with respect to conscious and subconscious processing in the mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "notice", but I try to remember to use the verb "notice" to refer only to the processing of the conscious mind: in particular, to mean "pay attention consciously". I think I'm pretty consistent with that usage in this forum. For example, that's what I mean when I say I like to use lane positioning to get motorists to "notice" me: I mean I'm trying to snap them out of "auto pilot" and get their conscious minds to pay attention to me.

Now, "decide if it is relevant" has meaning both consciously and subconsciously. I can decide while sitting at my desk that something, in general, is relevant or not. Those are concepts I integrate into my mind. Once that is accomplished, while riding, my subconscious mind can "decide if it is relevant'" based on various criteria, including concepts I have integrated into my mind while sitting at my desk.

With that in mind, I can answer your question.

You can decide if something is relevant or not without noticing it by:

a) consciously deciding it is not relevant in general while at your desk, and having that concept integrated into your mind
b) in real-time, having your subconscious mind decide a specific instance of that something is not relevant, perhaps because of concepts integrated via (a), and, so, not alerting your conscious mind to it, thus you (consciously) don't "notice" it.

Edit: This is an example of something probably the contrarians will claim requires "clarifiation", etc., while those who have no animosity for me will probably have little trouble understanding it.

This takes the cake. Only you can take such a simple concept and twist it into something overcomplicated and totally wacky. IF YOU DON'T NOTICE IT, YOUR MIND CANNOT PROCESS WHETHER IT IS RELEVANT OR NOT!

Your superhuman attempts to dodge this issue limits the logical conclusions to:
a. you are lying about your commute route
b. you are lying about commuting at all
c. you were lying about not noticing the lane stripes because you could not bring yourself to admit to Pete or anyone else that they might be correct in their own observations.

Knowing you as I do, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that 3 is probably the case. Perhaps if you were just honest once in a while, rather than trying to spin your posts to fit your vc dogma, you might be taken a little more seriously and not have your words picked apart at every turn.

I still think that if a pink flamingo appeared on someone's lawn on my regular commute, I would notice it due to the abject tackiness. I think i would notice it too. Maybe you would and I wouldn't. Maybe I would and you wouldn't. Maybe we both would. Maybe we both wouldn't.

The real stinker is that if you don't notice it, you have no idea that you didn't notice it. That's the eerie thing about inattentional blindness: when what you didn't notice is brought to your attention.

In the gorilla/basketball study many participants refused to believe that the gorilla was there, and beleive that they were duped with a different tape. They couldn't accept that they simply did not notice it.

But walk into a room with lots of stuff that you've never been in, or haven't been in for a long time. Spend a few seconds in the room looking at everything, then quickly walk out. Now try to list everything you noticed in that room on a piece of paper. Now walk back in and spend more time looking at everything, noting all the stuff you didn't notice. You'll be amazed at what you missed.

This is a more effective test when you're in the room and you don't know you will be asked to list everything, so it's better to ask someone else to go sit in the room and you'll tell them why later. After 5 minutes, ask them to come out and come up with a list.

In scientific tests they set up fake interviews with people, and the room with lots of stuff is allegedly the waiting room. The interview turns out to be a videotaped session where they are asked to recall everything they noticed in the cluttered waiting room. Many participants can hardly recall anything.

Are you serious? Where have you been? The fundamental VC principle about where to ride on roads with bike lanes is ignore the bike lane stripe (position yourself the way you would if the bike lane stripe was not there - if that puts you outside the bike lane, fine, if that puts you inside the bike lane, so be it). Thanks for confirming how thoroughly integrated that VC principle is in my riding (I knew I was good, I didn't realize I was that good! :p ).

I, obviously, ignore bike lane stripes. Their presence, much less whether they are solid or striped, makes no difference to me. They are totally and completely irrelevant to me, as you have shown.

How exactly I accomplish that, I cannot tell you. I'm not a cognitive scientist. But I know it has to do with effective cognitive filtering of the relevant wheat from the irrelevant chaff. Bike lane stripes are irrelevant chaff.
Helmet Head,

Wasn't it you who heavily criticized me for riding purposely outside the bike lane on NW Evergreen Avenue in Hillsboro, Oregon in order to do a test of the VC ideas? How does that compare with your statement above?

John

Edit: This is an example of something probably the contrarians will claim requires "clarifiation", etc., while those who have no animosity for me will probably have little trouble understanding it.

This takes the cake. Only you can take such a simple concept and twist it into something overcomplicated and totally wacky. IF YOU DON'T NOTICE IT, YOUR MIND CANNOT PROCESS WHETHER IT IS RELEVANT OR NOT!

Your superhuman attempts to dodge this issue limits the logical conclusions to:
a. you are lying about your commute route
b. you are lying about commuting at all
c. you were lying about not noticing the lane stripes because you could not bring yourself to admit to Pete or anyone else that they might be correct in their own observations.

Knowing you as I do, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that 3 is probably the case. Perhaps if you were just honest once in a while, rather than trying to spin your posts to fit your vc dogma, you might be taken a little more seriously and not have your words picked apart at every turn.
Q.E.D.

Gotta go!

Helmet Head,

Wasn't it you who heavily criticized me for riding purposely outside the bike lane on NW Evergreen Avenue in Hillsboro, Oregon in order to do a test of the VC ideas? How does that compare with your statement above?

John
Ignore the bike lane stripe does not mean ride outside of the bike lane.


See common misconceptions in the Wikipedia article on vehicular cycling.

So how do you know there is a pink flamingo or a fountain if you didn't notice it? Come on, JJ, just because HH has a problem with being observant doesn't mean you have to follow his lead. You can admit that you notice lots of 'irrelevant' things on your route, I promise, he won't bite you.

The point is simple, but you both seem scared to death to accept it - you can't determine relevancy if you don't notice something in the first place. If you can, please explain how you do it. Tarot cards maybe?

A planchette (a.k.a. a Ouija board) mounted on the top tube is great for determining what's relevant and what's not. It works not only for pink flamingos but also for such things as the occasional black rhino potentially inadvertantly drifting toward a cyclist from behind. Handlebar-mounted forked twigs ('divining rods' or 'doodlebugs'), which were tried previously, didn't work out very well. The great thing about the Ouija boards is that the bicyclist no longer needs to notice anything at all and can ride with no situational awareness whatsoever. The top tube mounted Ouija boards work so well, in fact, that plans are afoot to market them. It's expected that they will render the pink flamingo question a non-issue and may even make the tinfoil hat obsolete.

No, I'm not kidding. And it has nothing to do with. It's inherent in all forums like this between all people.

Think of some house that you know with a front yard that has a living object with bark and needles on it.
You now have a concept of that living object in your mind.
Now, with words, consider trying to convey that concept to others.
You can write "tree", but what does that convey to others?
You can write "pine tree", and that helps, but it's still not conveying the particulate concept you have in mind with much accuracy.
And that's with respect to something physical.

With abstract concepts it's arguably even more difficult.

It's important to keep those two points of possible error due to translation in mind whether writing or reading.
It's less of an issue when talking to someone on the phone, because there you can hear changes in tone, and it's easier to stop someone when something is misunderstood, to ask for clarification. When in person it's even better, because we can see each other facial expressions and body language. In this forum we have none of that. So it's very easy to misunderstand, to grasp a concept that was not conveyed, or convey a concept that you did not have in mind.

We have to work together to minimize the impact of those translation errors.

:rolleyes:

Ignore the bike lane stripe does not mean ride outside of the bike lane.


See common misconceptions in the Wikipedia article on vehicular cycling.
Interesting. I'm curious how you can ignore the bike lane stripe, and not ride outside the line?

Since you feel that many types of bike lanes are dangerous, why is riding in the next lane so bad, especially when it is two lanes each way, with an island separating them? What I was trying to do was to quantify your assertions about cars passing further away when you are not in a bike lane than when you are in it. Our bike lanes are not hatched within 200 feet of the intersection, but only when they cross the path of a right-turn lane. In another section of this roadway, where I got hit, John Forester said that I was in the process of taking the lane way too late, that I should have been in the lane much higher up on the hill. How could I do this, without getting out of the bike lane. There seems to me to be a serious discrepency between what you say at one point and at another, or in one thread verses another.

I'm still open to changing my view on bike lanes, but you have to show me studies and show me some consistency in your own position. You also really pointed the finger of blame to another cyclist who was killed riding in the bike lane, saying that he should have been in the car lane in this situation to have been seen by a driver turning left (classic left hook, shooting the gap situation), and that was a one-lane each way road.

So, rather than clarify, you've really confused me now.

John

Ignore the bike lane stripe does not mean ride outside of the bike lane.


See common misconceptions in the Wikipedia article on vehicular cycling.

And let me guess, you wrote that part of the wiki article? hahah, of course you did you sly dog you ;)

I think HH is gone for a few days so I'll attempt to answer this as I've followed most of this discussion.

Ignore the bike lane stripe does not mean ride outside of the bike lane.

Ignoring the stripe means not basing your lane position on the location of the bike lane stripe. That means sometimes you might be in the bike lane, sometimes you might be on the stripe, and sometimes you might be in the traffic lane. It does not mean you are always in the traffic lane.

Contrariwise, following the bike lane stripe would mean staying within the area demarcated by the stripe.

Since you feel that many types of bike lanes are dangerous, why is riding in the next lane so bad, especially when it is two lanes each way, with an island separating them? What I was trying to do was to quantify your assertions about cars passing further away when you are not in a bike lane than when you are in it.

Riding in the next lane over is not necessarily bad unless you are purposely ignoring pavement to your right that could be safely used to allow faster traffic to pass easier, in other words, if you are disobeying the rules of the road. Situations where it is possible to safely use a bike lane would include when there is a bike lane of sufficient width for cycling at the cyclist's speed, the bike lane is clean, the pavement is smooth, and the road ahead is free of intersections where being in the bike lane might cause a conflict with a turning vehicle entering or exiting the road. I believe that after your ride in the traffic lane you complained of being honked at quite a bit and HH told you it was because you should have been in the bike lane. You never explained what reasons you had for leaving the bike lane so HH made the assumption that it was perfectly ok to use but you chose to not use the space anyway. Is this a valid assumption by him or were there many intersections which would have prevented you from safely using the bike lane?

In another section of this roadway, where I got hit, John Forester said that I was in the process of taking the lane way too late, that I should have been in the lane much higher up on the hill. How could I do this, without getting out of the bike lane. There seems to me to be a serious discrepency between what you say at one point and at another, or in one thread verses another.

There is no discrepancy. When you leave the side of the road on a road where the outside lane (or outside lane plus bike lane/shoulder) is wide enough to safely share, you should have a reason for it. That reason could be that you are approaching any intersection, avoiding debris, merging left in anticipation of the lane narrowing, merging left in anticipation of making a left turn, passing a slower vehicle, the lack of same direction faster traffic, etc. If you don't have a reason for using up more width than necessary, you are violating the rules of the road.

While it's your opinion it remains your assumption as well. I can't help you with your erroneous assumption. Sorry.

Then why do you get involved in threads such as this one, if not for the reasons I gave?

So your point is that the fact that there's a pink flamingo, or newspaper on someone's driveway, etc. wouldn't be noticed by you. Ok. I thought that you brought the pink flamingo into the discussion.

I still think that if a pink flamingo appeared on someone's lawn on my regular commute, I would notice it due to the abject tackiness.

My point (and HH's) is that I generally tend to ignore things that are irrelevant to me, such as lawn ornaments, newspapers in a driveway, mailbox numbers, etc. Maybe tomorrow I can look around and see if I spot any pink flaminogs. If I do, I won't know if they just appeared or if they've been there all along because I don't really know what exactly I've been ignoring all this time. You may think that pink flamingo just appeared but maybe it had always been there and you just now noticed it. You'd need to ask the owner and trust his answer to be 100% certain that you never simply missed it before (unless you had pictures or video to jog your memory).

Have you ever been a passenger in a car while driving along a route that you normally always drove yourself through? Ever look around and suddenly notice all sorts of things that you never saw before? It happens to me quite frequently, but maybe I'm in the minority.

Joejack,

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me HH and JF tend to prefer bike lane free WOLs, and you mentioned a preference for NOLs (on multi-laned arterials with frequent intersections).

I believe I understand your reasoning, that a NOL forces the cyclist to take the lane, and forces the traffic to realize that the cyclist has no place to move to, and to treat him as a slower occupant of the entire lane. (I have my preferences, and am not here to criticize yours). And I think you mentioned that you might like sharrows in that NOL. (The sharrows would be a big incentive for someone like me to ride it, and I ride vehicularly - maybe if you add a slower speed limit to the right lane, or something else designed to get drivers fully used to the idea of slow traffic in that lane, and I might be able to get behind it - but this is just irrelevant brainstorming on my part)

I think you mentioned that you prefer a WOL on roads with few/infrequent intersections.

Do you see a contradiction between your preferences and HHs? I think JF and HH almost universally prefer the WOL. Do you know if this is so? Do you know their rationale, even in scenarios like you mention?

(ps I'm only asking you, since HH says he's gone. If HH or JF want to respond, that's fine too)

Joejack,

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me HH and JF tend to prefer bike lane free WOLs, and you mentioned a preference for NOLs (on multi-laned arterials with frequent intersections).

I believe I understand your reasoning, that a NOL forces the cyclist to take the lane, and forces the traffic to realize that the cyclist has no place to move to, and to treat him as a slower occupant of the entire lane. (I have my preferences, and am not here to criticize yours). And I think you mentioned that you might like sharrows in that NOL. (The sharrows would be a big incentive for someone like me to ride it, and I ride vehicularly - maybe if you add a slower speed limit to the right lane, or something else designed to get drivers fully used to the idea of slow traffic in that lane, and I might be able to get behind it - but this is just irrelevant brainstorming on my part)

I think you mentioned that you prefer a WOL on roads with few/infrequent intersections.

Do you see a contradiction between your preferences and HHs? I think JF and HH almost universally prefer the WOL. Do you know if this is so? Do you know their rationale, even in scenarios like you mention?

(ps I'm only asking you, since HH says he's gone. If HH or JF want to respond, that's fine too)

I'm honestly not sure how HH and JF would answer the question about their preference on multi-lanedroads with frequent intersections. I'd like to hear their commentary and why they agree or disagree with me. I believe that I've seen HH allude to the fact that he prefers multiple NL's over one WOL in threads discussing "road diets." I say "allude" because I don't remember him stating anything specific but he did question the logic of removing a perfectly good traffic lane that's open for use to cyclists and replacing it with a narrower bike lane. I know I always question the logic too so hopefully I'm not confusing/combining our opinions.

[edit]http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...7&postcount=64 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2366607&postcount=64) HH on NOL's [edit]

I mentioned sharrows/signage on these types of roads because I realize that they are dreaded by most cyclists, something that's easy for me to understand because I dreaded them too before I learned how to ride them. In my experience, I get the best treatment on this style of road (given the intersection density and thus my need to be in the traffic lane) so I can't honestly ask for anything more without feeling like I should go after lower hanging fruit (like sharrows on the same style of roads but with a shoulder).

This could be an interesting thread topic.

No worries. I know you don't speak for them, perhaps one can answer when they get back.

I've never tried a sharrow road, and am anxious to. We have the "share the road sign" but I don't think I've ridden on something with a frequent bicycle icon on the road (outside of a BL). If someone knows of a few in SD, feel free to PM me (or share here, as you will).

Digression: Recently, I was riding in the car with some coworkers (including my boss). My boss saw a share the road sign, and asked "what the heck are those for?".... sigh...

I think HH is gone for a few days so I'll attempt to answer this as I've followed most of this discussion.



Ignoring the stripe means not basing your lane position on the location of the bike lane stripe. That means sometimes you might be in the bike lane, sometimes you might be on the stripe, and sometimes you might be in the traffic lane. It does not mean you are always in the traffic lane.

Contrariwise, following the bike lane stripe would mean staying within the area demarcated by the stripe.

So you are saying that you are riding unpredictably in this situation, using weave techniques some of you propose, and staying in sight, rather than off to the side. In other words, you are blind to the bike lane striping, and do not even consider it. Do you consider the lane markings on the two-lane each way road, or are you blind to that too?

Riding in the next lane over is not necessarily bad unless you are purposely ignoring pavement to your right that could be safely used to allow faster traffic to pass easier, in other words, if you are disobeying the rules of the road. Situations where it is possible to safely use a bike lane would include when there is a bike lane of sufficient width for cycling at the cyclist's speed, the bike lane is clean, the pavement is smooth, and the road ahead is free of intersections where being in the bike lane might cause a conflict with a turning vehicle entering or exiting the road. I believe that after your ride in the traffic lane you complained of being honked at quite a bit and HH told you it was because you should have been in the bike lane. You never explained what reasons you had for leaving the bike lane so HH made the assumption that it was perfectly ok to use but you chose to not use the space anyway. Is this a valid assumption by him or were there many intersections which would have prevented you from safely using the bike lane?
I had just come out of an area with many, many parking lots into an intersection (185th and Evergreen Parkway, Hillsboro, OR if you want to Google it; I was going west-bound on Evergreen Parkway). Everywhere around there would be "approaching an intersection" under Helmet Head's designation. I had just gone through the intersection, heading west when honked at. Traffic was light as it was about 1:45 PM.

On the other side of this intersection, going west, is where I almost did not come home. It took a weekend in the hospital before I got home, and was dizzy for almost two months thereafter. If you follow the road (Evergreen Parkway) to the east, it will go past a second roadway immediately beyond the 185th intersection, and then go to the left in a long curve to Cornell Road. Cars coming out these parking lots are very impatient, and make for very hazardous riding. Just past the island is where I got was signaling to turn into the middle lane, for a left turn at Cornell Road (bottom of the hill). Approximately at the intersection is where I was hit, or somehow involved with a car--I don't have any memory from about the island on, as my last memory was to signal to turn before waking up in the hospital about 45 minutes later. John Forester has told me that I should have gotten into the middle lane much earlier, like at the top of the hill, which would have been two parking lot intersections earlier. But now you and Helmet Head say that I should be in the bike lane?

I was trying, seriously, to test your theories using my techniques of determining passing distances, and all I got from you guys (and it was all guys too) was this sort of condescending ridicule. Now, my question to you is, "How is your behavior to me going to help you educate me in your VC techniques?" I'm still open, but you have to show some willingness to get away from your mindset of putting people down.

There is no discrepancy. When you leave the side of the road on a road where the outside lane (or outside lane plus bike lane/shoulder) is wide enough to safely share, you should have a reason for it. That reason could be that you are approaching any intersection, avoiding debris, merging left in anticipation of the lane narrowing, merging left in anticipation of making a left turn, passing a slower vehicle, the lack of same direction faster traffic, etc. If you don't have a reason for using up more width than necessary, you are violating the rules of the road.
I had two reasons for it, what John Forester had told me about getting out of the bike lane earlier, and trying to see whether your techniques were indeed better. Because of the reaction you have given me, I have not repeated it, but do stay in the bike lanes when available, even if they are what Helmet Head has stated is an "unsafe" bike lane. I am not agressive in my riding, and will purposely take trails and paths to avoid these kinds of areas.

As a matter of fact, if you go up the hill again to the intersection of NW Evergreen Parkway and NW Town Center Dr., go north on NW Town Center Drive, you will see a poorly-maintained, almost untraveled bike path around the Tannesbourne Center. The path is hard to see, but takes off just after the curve in NW Town Center Dr., near the entrance ramp for Highway 26. That bike path goes behind the buildings, and avoids all the Tannesbourne Center traffic, completely. It comes out in a parking lot for a Lazy-Boy store, goes up to 173rd, which is fairly close to my home. That is what I usually take during busy times of the day now (or another very different route). This is why we have coined "Adaptive Cycling," to get away from all this "stuff" you guys are trying to lay on us here.

John

I had just come out of an area with many, many parking lots into an intersection (185th and Evergreen Parkway, Hillsboro, OR if you want to Google it; I was going west-bound on Evergreen Parkway). Everywhere around there would be "approaching an intersection" under Helmet Head's designation. I had just gone through the intersection, heading west when honked at.
Google map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=185th+and+Evergreen+Parkway,+Hillsboro,+OR&sll=45.531034,-122.854614&sspn=0.01428,0.035405&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=45.538196,-122.866859&spn=0.000892,0.002213&z=19&iwloc=addr//) that I'm using.

Real quick...

Along Evergreen going west between 185th and Town Center, assuming that red car is about 15 feet long, I see well over 200 feet of intersectionless roadway. Unless you are in the process of turning left on Town Center (looking back, signalling, merging), why would you be left of the space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane stripe? Even if traffic is light, if faster same direction traffic is present, seems to me you're violating the rules of the road if you're a driver of a slow moving vehicle and not as far right as practicable. That's why when you originally told me about this I joked, "I might have honked at you too" (or something to that effect). As you approach Town Center, I could see looking back and possibly/probably moving left to make sure you avoid being to the right of anyone turning right on Town Center (and then moving right again as you cross the Evergreen/Town Center intersection). But you say you're to the left of the bike lane after you just went through the Evergreen/185 intersection. How do you justify violating the basic vehicular speed positioning principle (which is: slower traffic keeps right)?

I had two reasons for it, what John Forester had told me about getting out of the bike lane earlier, and trying to see whether your techniques were indeed better. As I recall, John Forester said you should have been further left earlier in a context where you needed to move left to prepare to turn left (on Cornell). What he meant by earlier was don't wait until you're passed that last mall entrance before you start merging left. But he didn't mean get out of the bike lane when you're still way back at the intersection with 185! On the google map I see a place to turn right before you get to Cornell. Back up from that (going west), and you'll see an eastbound gray/silver car in the right lane. That's about where I would start the process of merging left if I was planning on turning left on Cornell, give or take, depending on traffic conditions, etc.

So, in this case, where you were doing "the VC test", you were not in the process of merging left in order to turn left when you cross the 185, so the "what John Forester told me" reason did not apply. As far as seeing whether "our techniques" were indeed better, according to our techniques, you should have been about 3' to the right of faster same direction traffic, which probably puts you in the space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane stripe. If you were further left, then you were not using VC techniques.

what a load of worthless this thread has become,

ANOTHER bashing of bike infrastructure by the armchair cyclist. A sophistic question, anwsered about the science of bike infrastructure, buried under the semantic shenangins of a part time, weekend fred, about HIS interpretations of roadway design and riding styles.

Remember, helmet head, vehicular cyclists use bike lanes. Vehicular cyclists use the blue bike lanes in Portland. Vehicular cyclists use bike paths and the shoulders of high speed roads.

The efficacy of bike infrastructure has been shown, in numerous, likely hundreds of studies- as alluded to by Ol' Mossy John- to increase cycling and increase cyclist safety on roadways, despite the naysaying by the VC-addled.

Bike infrastructure HAS a science, has been studied, its effects proven, and seen in cities around the world.Bike specific accomodations have been studied and implemented in Europe for over four decades. Bike infrastructure has a place in bike advocacy. Ol' Mossy Johns' emotionally ******ed, sophistic rebuttals hold no candle to the worldwide effects of bike infrastructure.

remember, folks, vehicular cyclists use bike lanes, bike infrastructure, etc. in the real world. Mr. Head's self centered delusions are mere internet rantings of a transportationalist wannabe who hardly rides, and relies on his weekend peloton and the disarming effects of his child on a trail-a-bike to keep the weekend traffic at bay

what a load of worthless this thread has become,

ANOTHER bashing of bike infrastructure by the armchair cyclist. A sophistic question, anwsered about the science of bike infrastructure, buried under the semantic shenangins of a part time, weekend fred, about HIS interpretations of roadway design and riding styles.

Remember, helmet head, vehicular cyclists use bike lanes. Vehicular cyclists use the blue bike lanes in Portland. Vehicular cyclists use bike paths and the shoulders of high speed roads.

The efficacy of bike infrastructure has been shown, in numerous, likely hundreds of studies- as alluded to by Ol' Mossy John- to increase cycling and increase cyclist safety on roadways, despite the naysaying by the VC-addled.

Bike infrastructure HAS a science, has been studied, its effects proven, and seen in cities around the world.Bike specific accomodations have been studied and implemented in Europe for over four decades. Bike infrastructure has a place in bike advocacy. Ol' Mossy Johns' emotionally ******ed, sophistic rebuttals hold no candle to the worldwide effects of bike infrastructure.

remember, folks, vehicular cyclists use bike lanes, bike infrastructure, etc. in the real world. Mr. Head's self centered delusions are mere internet rantings of a transportationalist wannabe who hardly rides, and relies on his weekend peloton and the disarming effects of his child on a trail-a-bike to keep the weekend traffic at bay Thanks, Bek, I'm sure I speak for the entire forum when I say your insightful comments and original observations are always appreciated.

thank you. you like my mentions of the over four decades of bike infrastructure and planning in Europe, and the hundreds of studies alluded to by Ol' Mossy?

You ignore the studies brought up in this thread to prattle on endlessly on worthless tangents, like talking about honking your car horn at John Ratliff...shame on you, armchair rider.

Head, don't you have a wife and kids? It's nearly midnight.

I just rode back from the ride of silence, and a bonfire at the beach. about fifty miles on the bike today.

I'm honestly not sure how HH and JF would answer the question about their preference on multi-lanedroads with frequent intersections. I'd like to hear their commentary and why they agree or disagree with me. I believe that I've seen HH allude to the fact that he prefers multiple NL's over one WOL in threads discussing "road diets." I say "allude" because I don't remember him stating anything specific but he did question the logic of removing a perfectly good traffic lane that's open for use to cyclists and replacing it with a narrower bike lane. I know I always question the logic too so hopefully I'm not confusing/combining our opinions.

[edit]http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...7&postcount=64 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2366607&postcount=64) HH on NOL's [edit]

I mentioned sharrows/signage on these types of roads because I realize that they are dreaded by most cyclists, something that's easy for me to understand because I dreaded them too before I learned how to ride them. In my experience, I get the best treatment on this style of road (given the intersection density and thus my need to be in the traffic lane) so I can't honestly ask for anything more without feeling like I should go after lower hanging fruit (like sharrows on the same style of roads but with a shoulder).

This could be an interesting thread topic. Assume NOL=10-11'; WOL=14+'

For me personally, I don't have a strong preference either way. But if it's a road with relatively high speeds (45+) and relatively few intersections I start leaning towards WOLs. But the lower the speeds and/or the more frequent the intersections, the more I prefer NOLs where I can just take the lane.

So if the speeds are 35 or lower, and/or the intersections are relatively frequent (i.e., most urban and suburban environments, except for some suburban arterials) then I prefer NOLs. If the speeds are 45 or higher, AND the intersections are relatively infrequent (i.e., some suburban arterials), then I probably prefer WOLs. If the intersections are infrequent and the speeds are moderate (40 mph), it's a wash.

On high speed roads where slow moving vehicles are prohibited with no at-grade intersections (i.e., freeways), a segregated bike-only lane/shoulder is fine.

WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK? you're not a traffic engineer, and not much of a bicyclist either, Mr. Head.

Isn't the posted topic of this thread (which you started, by the way) about the science of bike lane advocacy? not the musings of a weekender.

I'm sure I speak for the entire forum when I say...
Don't even dream that you speak about bicycling (or forum content) for anyone but yourself.

I was going to write a few experiences here in Albuquerque with the extensive bike lanes and sharrows. There are also several MUPs as well. But while I was traveling here there were another ~200 posts. No way for me to catch up and still keep Sweetie/"the Boss" happy.

So a few comments.

One, I did write something earlier. If anyone asked me something or made a comment, my apologies for a lack of response.

Two, from what I gather, there have not been any good experiments with bike lanes specifically. But it does seem like if you take facilities and road improvements as a whole, that there is an argument that cycling becomes safer. Like much of cycling's evidence, it is pretty rough and I think some of the details of the experiments would be horrifying to a scientific eye. Decomposing the effects during external changes in society--e.g., population growth and migration--and multiple cycling/traffic changes would be very difficult.

Three, these "goat heads" in Albuquerque are a royal pain in the butt. One went right through a Schwalbe Marathon tire and blew out my rear tire. The hole is big enough that the tire might have to be re-"tire"-d. You might ask how it is related to bike lanes. In certain sections of town, they are littered all over the bike lanes. So my guess is that these lanes are not swept often. Not a scientific observation. But weather permitting, I will join the locals in Bike to Work Day tomorrow and try to ask questions about the local facilities.

-G

Don't even dream that you speak about bicycling (or forum content) for anyone but yourself.

:lol:

Very true ... HH, you should definitely know better than to write that.

-G

Google map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=185th+and+Evergreen+Parkway,+Hillsboro,+OR&sll=45.531034,-122.854614&sspn=0.01428,0.035405&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=45.538196,-122.866859&spn=0.000892,0.002213&z=19&iwloc=addr//) that I'm using.

Real quick...

Along Evergreen going west between 185th and Town Center, assuming that red car is about 15 feet long, I see well over 200 feet of intersectionless roadway. Unless you are in the process of turning left on Town Center (looking back, signalling, merging), why would you be left of the space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane stripe? Even if traffic is light, if faster same direction traffic is present, seems to me you're violating the rules of the road if you're a driver of a slow moving vehicle and not as far right as practicable. That's why when you originally told me about this I joked, "I might have honked at you too" (or something to that effect). As you approach Town Center, I could see looking back and possibly/probably moving left to make sure you avoid being to the right of anyone turning right on Town Center (and then moving right again as you cross the Evergreen/Town Center intersection). But you say you're to the left of the bike lane after you just went through the Evergreen/185 intersection. How do you justify violating the basic vehicular speed positioning principle (which is: slower traffic keeps right)?

As I recall, John Forester said you should have been further left earlier in a context where you needed to move left to prepare to turn left (on Cornell). What he meant by earlier was don't wait until you're passed that last mall entrance before you start merging left. But he didn't mean get out of the bike lane when you're still way back at the intersection with 185! On the google map I see a place to turn right before you get to Cornell. Back up from that (going west), and you'll see an eastbound gray/silver car in the right lane. That's about where I would start the process of merging left if I was planning on turning left on Cornell, give or take, depending on traffic conditions, etc.

So, in this case, where you were doing "the VC test", you were not in the process of merging left in order to turn left when you cross the 185, so the "what John Forester told me" reason did not apply. As far as seeing whether "our techniques" were indeed better, according to our techniques, you should have been about 3' to the right of faster same direction traffic, which probably puts you in the space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane stripe. If you were further left, then you were not using VC techniques.
Okay Helmet Head, the place where that gray car is located on NW Evergreen Parkway is almost exactly where I have my last memory of signaling to turn to the left lane. Thanks for telling me that I was doing it (VC) correctly when I was almost killed. I now avoid this area completely. My last memory of that ride was looking back to clear myself for the turn left. I was not using a mirror (per the then VC recommendations of John Forester), and someone pulled out in front of me (per witnesses) from the parking lot intersection.

Now, if what you say is true, concerning riding in the bike lane in this area of Evergreen Parkway, I'd like to go over again the area where Michael Wilberding was struck and killed. If what you are saying is crorrect for Evergreen Parkway, where there is two lanes each direction and traffic could easily get around a bicycle outside the bike lane area, then what about this street where there is only one lane in each direction? You made some pretty powerful statements that Michael Wilberding should have been in the lane, probably the whole several blocks in this area, because the bike lanes were "unsafe." But to do so, he would have had to do exactly what I was doing in my test. You cannot have it both ways. Yes, I will remember this, as not even a concussion and dizziness from my accident affects my memory that much. I think you owe the Wilberding family an apology, perhaps posted on the same blog that you posted on just after his death. If you need a link, I'll provide it for you.

Now, it's time for me to ride to work.

John

They put sharrows on a road in my town. I finally had a chance to try them.

I think they are a good idea, but I felt they were too far out in the lane and too far apart. It would be ok to be so far out in the lane if they were closer together.

I kept wanting to move more to the right in between because I didn't think I needed to be so far out in the lane. If they were close together then maybe the motorists (and cyclists) would see them better and understand that this is where the cyclists are supposed to be. Since they aren't closer together, I can't tell if they "get it" that I'm way out in here in the lane where I belong. I don't think I even "got it."

HH and John,

I'm getting a bit lost by both of your posts. Is there anyway you could take screenshots from Google Earth and drawing out what you've been trying to say with words?

Specifically for HH, can you draw lines showing how you would presumably ride this section of road and how you would prepare to make the left turn where John had his accident?

For John, can you draw out how you rode this section during your experiment and how you rode when you were preparing to make your left turn before your accident?

I know I'm probably asking a lot but I would like to continue this discussion. At this point, I cannot because I'm too confused.