Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The science of bike lane advocacy.

sorry, i thought this was about the science of bike lane advocacy and bike infrastructure.

HH degenerated his own thread into a pissing match about lane position.

John Ratliff posted some telling data from a study supporting the efficacy of bike infrastructure implementation in Portland, which got promptly tossed to the wayside in favor of the weekender spouting his personal preferences about riding accomodations.

Now Head is baiting John Ratliff into having to defend his lane position choices on a road he was riding VC and got into a colission accident. That Mr.Head would suggest he'd be honking at cyclists like John while taking the lane is very telling as to HH's attitude towards transportational cycling. The guy should be ashamed of himself, but he has no shame. It's really a pathetic showing IMO.

just great how these threads always seem to degenerate into head calling the shots. that guy should be banned, so dialogue could be unbiased and non-railroaded into head's lil' pet theories all the time.

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."

Sharrows! I want them where I live. Diane, I'm looking over an NCUTCD document specifying sharrow placement. They want the center of the sharrow to be 11' from the curb. This space accounts for a car parallel parking (7') plus if the car door is open (2'6") and the center of the sharrow to the open door (1'6"). Do you think that's how they placed the sharrows you saw? The interval between sharrows is specd to be no greater than 250'.

John Ratliff posted some telling data from a study supporting the efficacy of bike infrastructure implementation in Portland, which got promptly tossed to the wayside in favor of the weekender spouting his personal preferences about riding accomodations.

We can get back to that study if someone would answer my questions originally posted to Randya. He started to answer but wasn't entirely certain then never answered the rest of my questions.


Did the bike lane exist in the same form before the blue paint/signage was added?


It was a while ago, but my recollection is that it was all pretty much added at the same time. A bus lane has also been added to the right of the bike lane more recently, replacing a parking lane. Before that it was a nightmare free for all at the locations I'm familiar with, with lots of aggro motorists and bus drivers honking and trying to edge out the few brave cyclists attempting to 'take the lane'.


How did they determine that these intersections needed the blue paint and extra signage? When was the sidewalk added and/or made available to cyclists/made mandatory for cyclists?

Here's is your assumption:

"You seem to have more issues with what Serge says than anyone else on the forum. Why is that?"

I get involved in some threads because they can sometimes be educational and because they are typically amusing.

Ok, so my statement that you have more issues with Serge than anyone else was a bit strong. I think Bek or Chip wins that challenge. You didn't comment on my other post though:


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.

But you did earlier say you were being serious in response to this post:


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.


Yes I'm being serious...

So are you being serious while finding this all amusing? Or are you being serious and somehow finding the part of the discussion that you've been involved in educational? Or are you just amusing yourself per my assumptions in the post above that you ignored?


Yes. That has more to do with being able to keep your attention on the side of the road for longer periods than you can do when driving. This allows you to notice detail that is unnoticeable when you're driving, because you're constantly scanning front-side-rear.

Sometimes that's the case but it's also possible to look at something for the same period of time and notice different details (and completely exclude others) simply because you are only looking for a certain thing. Do you ever do jigsaw puzzles? Have you ever had the d@mnedest time trying to find a piece and when you finally do you realize that the whole time you were looking for it that you were looking for the wrong color/shape/size? You probably looked at that piece countless times but filtered it out as irrelevant because it didn't match in your mind what you were looking for. Does that analogy help at all?

some notations to science here, but a lot of static. did HH purposely chose to derail his own thread? what a sophist.

Let's move along, folks.

Not really. I don't equate the details that I'm drinking in while riding with looking at a jigsaw puzzle.

While riding, you are looking for things (that may affect your safety) and while doing a jigsaw puzzle you are looking for things (pieces that fit in the spot you are working on). While doing either activity, there are lots of other things around (scenery, people, vehicles while riding, and pieces that don't look anything like the piece you need while doing a puzzle) and you must try to filter out all the irrelevant data to find the relevant stuff. Not all of the irrelevant data is always filtered and not all of the relevant data gets noticed but if you know what to look for, chances are your filter will work properly. A properly working filter allows you to concentrate on that vehicle pulling out from the driveway and not on the billboard and it also allows you to find all the pieces with a bit of yellow in them amongst all the other puzzle pieces without having to completely sort through them one by one.

Am I doing any better?

some notations to science here, but a lot of static. did HH purposely chose to derail his own thread? what a sophist.

Let's move along, folks.

It'd be great if someone answered my questions in post #400 so that we can get back on topic.

It'd be great if someone answered my questions in post #400 so that we can get back on topic.

I guess you'd have to read the paper to find out - or go there and ask someone who lives in the area....

That doesn't work for me. A jigsaw is static and two dimensional while the riding environment is dynamic and three dimensional.

I want so badly to give up but my fingers won't let me.

How is a jigsaw puzzle a static, 2D environment? You are constantly moving your eyes around scanning whatever pieces are visible while pushing others around to expose new pieces and scanning those. Similarly, when riding you are constantly moving and the scenery is changing as you move revealing new things to look at.

I guess you'd have to read the paper to find out - or go there and ask someone who lives in the area....

I'd have read it by now if it wasn't $25. I was hoping someone who lived there (and it seems many on this forum do) could provide the simple details I'm asking for that I'm not sure the study itself will even provide.

If a jigsaw puzzle were to reflect the dynamic cycling environment the pieces would be changing position of their own volition, the pieces would be continually refreshed with some pieces disappearing and others appearing for the first time, etc.

Reread my post.

Actually, don't even bother rereading my post. How about telling me, in your own words, what I'm trying to say.

I really have no interest in helping you with your analogy that doesn't work for me. Sorry.

I'm not asking you to restate my analogy. I'm asking you to restate what I've been trying to say about inattentional blindness and how it affects you while cycling. You are arguing that I'm mistaking it for something else (not having enough time to pay attention to all the details) but I want to be sure you even know what I'm arguing. You don't need to accept what I'm saying to argue against it but you should be able to restate my position at least.

I'm not asking you to restate my analogy. I'm asking you to restate what I've been trying to say about inattentional blindness and how it affects you while cycling. You are arguing that I'm mistaking it for something else (not having enough time to pay attention to all the details) but I want to be sure you even know what I'm arguing. You don't need to accept what I'm saying to argue against it but you should be able to restate my position at least.

Are you trying to make a argument or score debate points?

If the former, reformulate your analogy to make your argument clearer. Analogies do not an argument make, they are only ways of transfering ideas, and if the particular analogy isn't cutting it, then some other argumentative strategy must by used.

Pete's got a point. I don't find your analogy particularly compelling either. Even if you are moving the pieces around, thus making the system "dynamic", you are the only one manipulating the environment. It should be obvious that this is a huge difference between the road environment and a puzzle.

The closest thing I can agree to is that your subconscious brain might do some filtering out of irrelevent details - however, your brain must still process all the information in some way to make a determination of relevence. However, I'd argue that a painted line on the road is a very relevent detail which will (or should be) be captured by your conscious mind. If you argue that it is not relevent, then I'd respond that you are throwing away valuable information about your environment, since positioning on the road with repect to cars is most of what traffic cycling is all about.

If you throw away the one reference point which is most convenient (and even if you don't agree with the concept of bike lanes, you have to admit that the bike lane line is the closest reference marker to your bike when out on the road), then you are trusting your safety completely to a stranger approaching your rear wheel at 40 mph. Knowing that you are reasonably outside the travel path of the vehicles approaching from behind allows you to pay closer attention to what is in front of you, since most accidents come from the front. Knowing that a vehicle has room to pass or not is a valuable piece of information.

With a reference line, a cyclist will know exactly how much of the passing room he is taking up and exactly how much room the car has to pass, and thus, how likely the car is to pass. If you are throwing away information such as this, I'd argue that you are less safe. This is regardless of whether bike lanes are best, better, or worse than other stuff in the bicycle accomodation grab bag.

Sharrows! I want them where I live. Diane, I'm looking over an NCUTCD document specifying sharrow placement. They want the center of the sharrow to be 11' from the curb. This space accounts for a car parallel parking (7') plus if the car door is open (2'6") and the center of the sharrow to the open door (1'6"). Do you think that's how they placed the sharrows you saw? The interval between sharrows is specd to be no greater than 250'.
I'm not sure how far from the curb they were. There is parking along the curb. I'm not a good judge of width. It does sound like it was likely within that exact range you cite. 250' is a tad too far apart at bicycle speed. Maybe not too bad at car speed. I don't know.

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.
joejack951,

Here is the photo. I'm not sure I'll get it the right size, so here is what I'll say.

--First arrow, where the gray car is, "Gray car, point where I started signaling. My intent wasto go to the left lane.
--Second arrow, "My accident happened somewhere around here. I have no memory of this.
--Third arrow, "I normally go to the middle lane. That way, on the turn, I'm on the outside lane on Cornell Road."

What I don't say is that from the left lane, just after the parking lot intersection, the road becomes three lanes, two turning left, and one turning right. This is obscured by the line when you have the view in "hybrid" like I have it here.

On the "test" I made, I rode this whole stretch, west bound through the intersection from the bottom of the hill to work (way beyond the 185th intersection) in the right tire track of the right lane. Again, this was to see how these cars would pass, and how much they would give, in this circumstance. Helmet Head had made a very strong point in the Michael Wilberding thread about not riding in the bicycle lane because of the dangers of not being seen. If you want, we can create a link to that thread, but I think you can see it by simply using the "search" function, and search for "Wilberding."

Actually, it will be easier to actually give Helmet Head's quote, and the thread link:


With all due respect to his loved ones, that's bull ****!. There is nothing SAFE or CAUTIOUS about staying in a bike lane in this situation, or in countless others. As we've said over and over, when motorists are turning left, you can expect them to be looking where they expect traffic to be, even in "bike friendly" (yeah, right) towns like Beaverton, NOT off to the side in line with the bike lane.

Yes, technically, it's the motorist's fault. But he did nothing different from what most motorists do all the time... look for oncoming traffic where one might expect oncoming traffic - in the traffic lane - before turning left. Expecting that he also remember to look in a special area for cyclists off to the side is unrealistic. He's human, folks. Human.


The link:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=218502&highlight=Wilberding

John

Are you trying to make a argument or score debate points?

If the former, reformulate your analogy to make your argument clearer. Analogies do not an argument make, they are only ways of transfering ideas, and if the particular analogy isn't cutting it, then some other argumentative strategy must by used.

Pete's got a point. I don't find your analogy particularly compelling either. Even if you are moving the pieces around, thus making the system "dynamic", you are the only one manipulating the environment. It should be obvious that this is a huge difference between the road environment and a puzzle.

I did the best I could at the time with that analogy. I thought it was good enough to post to try and explain the process of filtering information quickly and only looking for specific things. Pete's point is that he apparently doesn't feel like trying to understand what I'm getting at with my analogy. He simply wants to point out where it's not perfect (which is pretty easy to do with most analogies) yet I'm not even sure if he knows what perfect would even be. Hence why I asked him to restate my position. Of course, he doesn't have time for that either. Not amusing enough I guess.

I'm sorry, Pete. You don't seem to want to offer any new information yourself and you seem like you don't want to put much effort into understanding what I have to say so I'm done with that discussion.


The closest thing I can agree to is that your subconscious brain might do some filtering out of irrelevent details - however, your brain must still process all the information in some way to make a determination of relevence. However, I'd argue that a painted line on the road is a very relevent detail which will (or should be) be captured by your conscious mind. If you argue that it is not relevent, then I'd respond that you are throwing away valuable information about your environment, since positioning on the road with repect to cars is most of what traffic cycling is all about.

If you throw away the one reference point which is most convenient (and even if you don't agree with the concept of bike lanes, you have to admit that the bike lane line is the closest reference marker to your bike when out on the road), then you are trusting your safety completely to a stranger approaching your rear wheel at 40 mph. Knowing that you are reasonably outside the travel path of the vehicles approaching from behind allows you to pay closer attention to what is in front of you, since most accidents come from the front. Knowing that a vehicle has room to pass or not is a valuable piece of information.

With a reference line, a cyclist will know exactly how much of the passing room he is taking up and exactly how much room the car has to pass, and thus, how likely the car is to pass. If you are throwing away information such as this, I'd argue that you are less safe. This is regardless of whether bike lanes are best, better, or worse than other stuff in the bicycle accomodation grab bag.

HH had been arguing about the relevance of dashed bike lane lines. Operationally, there is no difference between a dashed line and a solid line at an intersection. To me, he has a point that the dashes are irrelevant. The bike lane line (or any lane/shoulder line) is considered relevant to me. Generally, motorists guide by lane stripes so while I'm riding, I consciously try to not ever be riding along a stripe as it opens me up to a less attentive motorist close passing or clipping me. I'll keep my tires at least 2 feet from a stripe at most times (my one exception being if I'm moving right to allow someone to pass and I see them giving me plenty of space I won't move all the way into the shoulder/bike lane and sometimes end up on the lane line).

So yes, I consider lane stripes (even bike lane stripes) in general relevant information. Dashed bike lane stripes not so much. In terms of positioning, the only relevance bike lane stripes have for me is making sure I'm either at least 2 feet to the right or well left (which is why I agree with noisebeam that bike lane stripes reduce the usable pavement on a road).

You have a good point about a lane line being a reference marker for passing. Lane stripes work well for that in general because most lanes are wide enough to safely fit any type of vehicle. When bike lanes get too narrow or debris filled, forcing a cyclist to ride further left, that reference marker becomes a bit dangerous to use for motorists as overhang from either the cyclist/bike or vehicle could cause a collision. If all bike lanes were 6+ feet wide and clean through out that width, using that line at a reference point for passing would probably be A-ok with me. I'll withhold my other opinions about the line though :)

joejack951,

Here is the photo. I'm not sure I'll get it the right size, so here is what I'll say.

--First arrow, where the gray car is, "Gray car, point where I started signaling. My intent wasto go to the left lane.
--Second arrow, "My accident happened somewhere around here. I have no memory of this.
--Third arrow, "I normally go to the middle lane. That way, on the turn, I'm on the outside lane on Cornell Road."

What I don't say is that from the left lane, just after the parking lot intersection, the road becomes three lanes, two turning left, and one turning right. This is obscured by the line when you have the view in "hybrid" like I have it here.

On the "test" I made, I rode this whole stretch, west bound through the intersection from the bottom of the hill to work (way beyond the 185th intersection) in the right tire track of the right lane. Again, this was to see how these cars would pass, and how much they would give, in this circumstance. Helmet Head had made a very strong point in the Michael Wilberding thread about not riding in the bicycle lane because of the dangers of not being seen. If you want, we can create a link to that thread, but I think you can see it by simply using the "search" function, and search for "Wilberding."

Actually, it will be easier to actually give Helmet Head's quote, and the thread link:



The link:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=218502&highlight=Wilberding

John

Thank you very much for the screenshot with comments. It's all much clearer now. HH got me all turned around when he said: "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." I believe that he meant going east. Either way, my brain couldn't let go of west being your travel direction and it was all downhill from there :)

For a somewhat rare change of pace, I'm going to disagree with HH here for a bit. He's saying in the quote above that even in light traffic, a cyclist should be as far right as practicable placing him in the bike lane in that short stretch between intersections. If I was riding that section in light traffic, I'd be inclined to stay left of the bike lane and let anyone who wants to pass use the left lane. Why should I make my life more difficult? Unless I was going very slow (say <10mph) I'm not going to be using that bike lane for very long if I want to merge left before the next intersection. If a line of traffic appears while I'm using that bike lane, I now need to make a quick merge left before the intersection or hope that any right turners yield to me (not something I trust people to do).

At that intersection where your accident was, it appears that immediately after the intersection, the rightmost lane is a right turn only lane. Because of this, by the time I reached that intersection I'd want to be in the proper destination lane (the rightmost left turn lane, or the middle lane in that picture). I'd probably be right where that gray car is to make sure I got to my lane in time. I wouldn't want to have to negotiate over two lanes from the bike lane at that point. My exception would be if I had a dense pack of traffic passing me and I could see that the last car would be past me at that point. If it was downhill and I had some decent speed, I'd probably have merged left before the previous entrance and held that lane until about where the gray car is then moved over one more lane.

I'd have to be there to know exactly, but from the picture, I think this is a fair estimate of how I'd ride that section.

(paraphrased) personal opinion, and not scientific at all....


nice one, joejack. now we know, you too, are against bike infrastructure. actually, i already knew that... i think personal interpretations of how John Ratliff would have been riding differently prior to his accident to be worthless to this thread.

John was riding best practices, and there's always going to be a joejack or a helemt head in this forum telling him he should have been riding differently, despite his riding best practices.

ANYHOO, there is a science surrounding accomodation of bicycles in transportation infrastructure. The Europeans have been studing and implementing versions of bike and pedestrian infrastructure for over four decades. America needs to catch up. Bike infrastructure increases cyclists, increases cyclist visibility on the roads, and increases cyclist safety. Studies in this country also show the same effects.

The chestbeating of the VC-addled really does little for cycling and may actually ****** populist efforts to increase cyclists on the roads in communities across the US.

nice one, joejack. now we know, you too, are against bike infrastructure. actually, i already knew that... i think personal interpretations of how John Ratliff would have been riding differently prior to his accident to be worthless to this thread.

John was riding best practices, and there's always going to be a joejack or a helemt head in this forum telling him he should have been riding differently, despite his riding best practices.

What are you talking about? I said how I would ride that section of road. Do you see anywhere in my post where I tell John what he should have been doing? Do my words on this forum have some sort of authority that I'm not aware of? How is the fact that I would leave a bike lane to negotiate a merge any further evidence to you that I'm against bike infrastructure? If I followed the bike lane to the intersection, I'd be making a left turn across a right turn only lane from the right edge of the road.

(paraphrased) yada yada yada

i find your 'analysis' of John's road positioning scenario to have little to nothing to add to this discussion.


there is a science surrounding accomodation of bicycles in transportation infrastructure. The Europeans have been studing and implementing versions of bike and pedestrian infrastructure for over four decades. America needs to catch up, design roads for the benefit of all road users, increase walkability and bikeability of public rights of way.

Bike infrastructure increases cyclist numbers, increases cyclist visibility on the roads when implemented in the "American" style of integrated, on road bike lanes, and increases cyclist safety. Bike specific road markings lead to increased on road use of cyclists and concurrent decreases in the indexed cyclist accident rate.

i find your 'analysis' of John's road positioning scenario to have little to nothing to add to this discussion.


there is a science surrounding accomodation of bicycles in transportation infrastructure. The Europeans have been studing and implementing versions of bike and pedestrian infrastructure for over four decades. America needs to catch up, design roads for the benefit of all road users, increase walkability and bikeability of public rights of way.

Bike infrastructure increases cyclist numbers, increases cyclist visibility on the roads when implemented in the "American" style of integrated, on road bike lanes, and increases cyclist safety. Bike specific road markings lead to increased on road use of cyclists and concurrent decreases in the indexed cyclist accident rate.

Your assertion that there is a scientific basis for the methods that the Europeans employ to accommodate bicycle traffic on the road system (that is, largely bikeways) is false. Their highest authorities admitted years ago that when they built their bikeways they had no science to support their designs. Their designs have not changed significantly since. There is no evidence that European bikeways reduce the car-bike collision rate. Your statement that bike lanes increase "cyclist visibility" is nonsense, of course, but even in the sense in which you probably mean it, that bike lanes increase cyclist conspicuity, that has never been demonstrated by any study. Neither bike lanes nor bike paths adjacent to roadways increase the bikeability of any part of the road system, though bike paths through undeveloped land do increase bikeability.

You made the assertions that I have just challenged. Where is your evidence that supports them with facts and reason?

Neither bike lanes nor bike paths adjacent to roadways increase the bikeability of any part of the road system,....

By who's standards? The few like you or the majority of average cyclists who don't choose/like to ride in heavy traffic?
I take it they don't count?

For myself.....I ride heavy traffic and fast roads frequently. If I have a convenient alternative, then yes, I'll use it, not because the traffic scares me, but because I hate breathing car exhaust!

As to infrastructure, I favor a hybrid approach if it can be done in a safe manner and the infrastructure I would dearly love to see would be a coast to coast bike route dedicated exclusively to human power and road bike convenient (paved). I'd like it to route so I wouldn't have to breath the exhaust other than in towns along the way. I also know full well that this is completely impractical, but hey, if you want something on a pipedream list, go big!:D :beer:

For myself.....I ride heavy traffic and fast roads frequently. If I have a convenient alternative, then yes, I'll use it, not because the traffic scares me, but because I hate breathing car exhaust!

As to infrastructure, I favor a hybrid approach if it can be done in a safe manner and the infrastructure I would dearly love to see would be a coast to coast bike route dedicated exclusively to human power and road bike convenient (paved). I'd like it to route so I wouldn't have to breath the exhaust other than in towns along the way. I also know full well that this is completely impractical, but hey, if you want something on a pipedream list, go big!:D :beer:

And why not? Such a recreational trail could be very attractive. However, the attractiveness of such a recreational trail has almost no bearing on the question of how best to travel by bicycle in urban areas, where the issue concerns vehicular cycling versus other methods.

And why not? Such a recreational trail could be very attractive. However, the attractiveness of such a recreational trail has almost no bearing on the question of how best to travel by bicycle in urban areas, where the issue concerns vehicular cycling versus other methods.
I understand, believe me. Like I said, I'll ride fast traffic, it doesn't bother me. I am just another vehicle after all, just human powered. I don't think we're too far apart on position, other than some differences in terminology and minor differences in technique.

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.
To review, here is the link to the 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=45.53522,-122.861915&spn=0.001586,0.00254&z=19).

We're talking about going SOUTH on Evergreen preparing to turn left (EAST) on Cornell.


At the top of the image going south in the right lane is a gray car. That's about where I would start merging left.
By the time I reached the intersection with the parking lot entrances, I would be in the left tire track of the LEFT lane, prepared to merge even further left to get into the left turn only lane for Cornell on the other side of the parking lot intersection.
Now, the "someone [who] pulled out in front of [you] from the parking lot intersection" was coming from your right. It sure sounds to me like you were still in the bike lane at that point, even right of the right track in the RIGHT lane, and you were looking back over your left your shoulder. The fact that you were not in the left lane yet, and still looking back to merge left, by the time you reached the parking lot intersection, is probably why Mr. Forester wrote to you that you started merging left too late. it certainly seems to be a significant contributory factor to the crash.


I hope you can see the dramatic difference between the VC approach I described in paragraph (1) above, and the approach that you apparently took as described in paragraph (2).



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
John,

Once again, you seem to be missing the key role of INTERSECTIONS in determining appropriate lateral positioning for a cyclist. BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS, off to the right of faster traffic is fine. I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting Wilberding should be be in the traffic lane for probably the whole several blocks in this area. But that explains why you thought you were testing VC when you tried doing that test on Evergreen.

What I did say was that as he was approaching the intersection where he got hit, just as he should have done for any intersection on that road, he should have looked back, negotiated for ROW as required, and merged left prior to entering the intersection.

And with respect to JoeJack's comments... First, sorry about the east/west mixup! Second, when I said I would be in the bike lane going EAST on Evergreen between 185th and Town Center (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=45.53773,-122.867057&spn=0.001586,0.00254&z=19), I was assuming significant volumes of significantly faster same direction traffic, and that I would merge left out of the bike lane as I approached the intersection with Town Center.

Helmet Head,

You have good points, and the answer is "I don't know..." My intention was to move left exactly where you stated I should. I have no memory of anything after that point, and can only speculate. There are a few things to keep in mind. Cars routinely come out of that right (and left too) parking lot/roadway), clear across the lanes fast. So it is possible that I was in the correct lane when this happened. I asked, and there was no police report on the accident, nor was there a written statement. So I don't have much to go on. This is an area where Brian was almost hit too, before my accident, and I know he was in the correct lane.

The other possibility is that, when I made that check, I found that there was a fast-moving car coming from behind that precluded me from moving left. Cars here many times gun it to the intersection, and even at 25 mph downhill, you cannot keep up (they are doing 35-40 at times, then brake at the bottom of the hill). But, as I said above, I'll never know the answer to that, unless I recover those memories (which I would probably already have done if it were to happen).

I would not go all the way to the left lane, as that is the "fast" lane for turning, and would put me into the auto lane, away from the right side of the road going up the fairly steep hill on Cornell to the east of the intersection. Also, I would be in the right tire track, and not the left. Is there a reason you stated you would be in the left tire track?

Concerning the route taken by Michael Wilberding, in order to ride the way you advocated, you would have to ignore the bike lane the entire way on this road. This is exactly why I decided to ride that way on NW Evergreen Parkway (Cornell does not have a bike lane east of the Evergreen intersection, but does have a wide outside lane in areas).

Again, I thank you for your patience, as I am still exploring this whole VC concept. Earlier, on another thread, I asked you and John Forester what "significant emotional event" it would take for you to challenge your own VC concepts. Please realize that this is exactly what happened to me on this accident, and that led to my challenging of the VC concepts. I have told my wife, who is the most significant other person in my life, that if I ever get hit and am again hospitalized, I will give up bicycling totally. I cannot have another accident, and so am applying all my professional safety knowledge to keeping that from happening ever again. That may mean that I will challenge you and JF about concepts you have been promoting, as I have found them wanting. This is also why in the 5 or so years that I have been riding (commuting) since this accident, that I have only gone through this area eastbound a handfull of times.

John

Helmet Head,

You have good points, and the answer is "I don't know..." My intention was to move left exactly where you stated I should. I have no memory of anything after that point, and can only speculate. There are a few things to keep in mind. Cars routinely come out of that right (and left too) parking lot/roadway), clear across the lanes fast. So it is possible that I was in the correct lane when this happened. I asked, and there was no police report on the accident, nor was there a written statement. So I don't have much to go on. This is an area where Brian was almost hit too, before my accident, and I know he was in the correct lane. Perhaps, but it would be highly unusual. Cyclists typically do not start merging left until they can get all the way left to their destination in one move. Also, if you were already in the correct lane before you reached the intersection, you probably would have been looking forward and have seen the guy coming from your right. What's much more likely is that you were still in the process of trying to get out of the bike lane, and looking back over your left shoulder. Bottom line: it appears that you entered an intersection while looking backwards.


The other possibility is that, when I made that check, I found that there was a fast-moving car coming from behind that precluded me from moving left. Cars here many times gun it to the intersection, and even at 25 mph downhill, you cannot keep up (they are doing 35-40 at times, then brake at the bottom of the hill). But, as I said above, I'll never know the answer to that, unless I recover those memories (which I would probably already have done if it were to happen). But, regardless of what happened at this one incident and that you have no recollection of it, if you had made a left turn vehicularly here (and in similar situations) regularly, you would know that you often had to negotiate with these faster drivers, and "ask" them to slow down to let you in using VC negotiation. You would also know:
about how effective negotiation is (is it the first, 2nd, 3rd, 4th car that usually yields)
whether a hand signal is rarely, or usually, required (or is just a look back sufficient to get them to yield)
how soon you had to start negotiating in order to ensure that you had enough time/distance to be properly positioned before you entered the parking lot intersection
etc.WIth all due respect, your words do not evoke familiarity and experience with these techniques.


I would not go all the way to the left lane, as that is the "fast" lane for turning, and would put me into the auto lane, away from the right side of the road going up the fairly steep hill on Cornell to the east of the intersection. Also, I would be in the right tire track, and not the left. Is there a reason you stated you would be in the left tire track? Sorry, I did not notice that the middle lane was left-or-straight. Map Link. (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=45.535301,-122.862173&spn=0.001586,0.00254&z=19) Allow me to revise: Prior to the parking lot intersection there are three lanes: left-only (into the east parking lot), straight-only, straight-or-right. So at that point I would be in the middle lane (straight-only) which becomes left-or-straight on the other side of the intersection. Since it's a lane that serves two destinations (left or straight), and I was going left on Cornell, I would bias to the left - near the left tire track - once I crossed the parking lot intersection.


Concerning the route taken by Michael Wilberding, in order to ride the way you advocated, you would have to ignore the bike lane the entire way on this road. This is exactly why I decided to ride that way on NW Evergreen Parkway (Cornell does not have a bike lane east of the Evergreen intersection, but does have a wide outside lane in areas). Yes, you would have to ignore the stripe (with respect to deciding where to ride), but that would not mean you would have to ride outside of the bike lane the entire way on that road. You seem to be equating "ignore the stripe" with "ride to the left of the stripe" again. Between intersections it would probably be appropriate to ride 3' to the right of faster traffic, which is likely to put you in the bike lane (this is standard VC "speed positioning"). But as you approach each intersection, you need to switch to destination positioning, and choose a further-left position that is more visible and predictable, and improves sight lines to and from you (including oncoming left-turning traffic, like the one that turned in front of Wilberding). That means BEFORE you get to each intersection:
Look back and see if any cars are coming.
If any care coming, negotiate as necessary.
Merge left
Cross the intersection.The key is to start sufficiently early to be properly positioned before you enter the intersection.




Again, I thank you for your patience, as I am still exploring this whole VC concept. Earlier, on another thread, I asked you and John Forester what "significant emotional event" it would take for you to challenge your own VC concepts. Please realize that this is exactly what happened to me on this accident, and that led to my challenging of the VC concepts. I have told my wife, who is the most significant other person in my life, that if I ever get hit and am again hospitalized, I will give up bicycling totally. I cannot have another accident, and so am applying all my professional safety knowledge to keeping that from happening ever again. That may mean that I will challenge you and JF about concepts you have been promoting, as I have found them wanting. This is also why in the 5 or so years that I have been riding (commuting) since this accident, that I have only gone through this area eastbound a handfull of times.

John Let's make sure you understand the concepts that we've been promoting, and that you're actually challenging what we are promoting, before we get any further down these sideroads of challenging concepts that neither we nor anyone else has been promoting.

Knowing what I know of the roads in this area HH, your analysis is funny. I don't want to pop into the debate though, so I'll leave it at that.

Knowing what I know of the roads in this area HH, your analysis is funny. I don't want to pop into the debate though, so I'll leave it at that. What debate? If you have any additional clarifying information, that would be helpful. These look like pretty typical suburban roads and intersections to me. Is there something that makes them unique?

My "analysis" indicates that your dad was looking backwards as he entered and crossed an intersection because he did not start merging left sufficiently early. Do you disagree?

What debate? If you have any additional clarifying information, that would be helpful. These look like pretty typical suburban roads and intersections to me. Is there something that makes them unique?

My "analysis" indicates that your dad was looking backwards as he entered and crossed an intersection because he did not start merging left sufficiently early. Do you disagree?
Helmet Head,

There are two things here. This is a downhill section, on a curve. If I saw a car, there would only be one car visible, because of the curve and the lay of the roadway.

Concerning looking backwards, what you don't realize is that the lack of memory extends backward in time from the accident, to several, perhaps as many as 5, seconds prior to the impact. My physician (a trauma doc) said this was pretty normal for a person suffering a concussion. I was traveling at about 25 mph, going downhill (pretty easy for me on a downhill). Here's a calculation:

25 miles/hr x 5280 ft/mile = 132000 feet/hr
132000 ft/hr / 60min/hr = 2200 ft/min
2200 ft/min / 60 sec/min = 36.67 ft/sec

Traveling at 37 feet per second, in five seconds I would travel about 180 feet. So I really don't know anything about the last 180 or so feet prior to my accident. That's a lot of territory, and since I don't know where I was at the point of impact, I really don't understand how you and John Forester can presume to know. In accident reconstruction, we do not speculate, but set up potential scenarios and work from there. I set up several above, and don't know which is the actual one.

I think this is one of the things that really turns me off to Vehicular Cycling is the willingness to blame the cyclist for an accident. It is one thing to take total responsibility, as you, JF and others have indicated a cyclists should do. It is quite another, in an actual accident such as mine or Michael Wilberding, to assign blame based upon very little information on the actual accident. All accidents have multiple causes (Multiple Causation Theory, a concept developed by Dan Peterson in his book, Techniques of Safety Management, copyright for the First Edition was 1971). This means that in these types of accidents, you cannot assign total blame on the cyclist, which is exactly what the VC concept seems to do. It has been done by you and John Forester in many accidents that we have discussed over the last several years, and is one of the basic VC concepts that I am challenging.

Getting back on-topic, this multiple-causation theory of accidents is part of the science of accident reconstruction. One of the newer (1990) theories of accident causation is one I've published papers on, and that is the Human Factors Theory of Accident Causation developed by David DeJoy, and which I've somewhat modified (from: DeJoy, David M., “Toward a comprehensive human factors model of workplace accident causation,” Professional Safety Magazine, Volume 35, Number 5, May 1990, page 14). You can see from this model that all accidents come down to human error, but that doesn't preclude more than one human from contributing. There are person-machine communication problems, the environment (which can be divided up), and decision-making considerations (both the bicyclist and the driver(s), in this case). There are other factors feeding each of these three areas. That you focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors, shows a lack of real understanding of modern accident theory and analysis.

John

I think this is one of the things that really turns me off to Vehicular Cycling is the willingness to blame the cyclist for an accident. It is one thing to take total responsibility, as you, JF and others have indicated a cyclists should do. It is quite another, in an actual accident such as mine or Michael Wilberding, to assign blame based upon very little information on the actual accident. All accidents have multiple causes (Multiple Causation Theory, a concept developed by Dan Peterson in his book, Techniques of Safety Management, copyright for the First Edition was 1971). This means that in these types of accidents, you cannot assign total blame on the cyclist, which is exactly what the VC concept seems to do. It has been done by you and John Forester in many accidents that we have discussed over the last several years, and is one of the basic VC concepts that I am challenging.

John
You are once again challenging a concept that you believe to be VC, but is not.

Nobody is assigning total blame on anyone. The VC concept IS based on the Multiple Causation Theory. In particular, the VC concept is about identifying the subset of multiple causes over which the cyclist has control or influence, and focusing on those, and what the cyclist can or could do to avoid crashes. To confuse that with assigning total blame on the cyclist, as you did, is totally missing the point.

As to speculating about where you were when, your posts simply do not evoke the understanding of traffic cycling that would be required for someone to already be in the left lane prior to entering the intersection with the parking lot. The fact that you obviously did not see the vehicle in front of you sufficiently early to avoid crashing into it indicates that you were riding too far right (short sight lines) and/or looking back as you entered the intersection.

How many times have you blamed the lack of a mirror as a contributory cause? The only way you could think a mirror might have helped is that you're assuming you looking back was a contributory cause. If you were looking back, then you still weren't in the left lane yet (if you were alreadly in the left lane, there would be no reason to look back).

This is one of the reasons that Forester argues against mirrors in his book: it enables "sloppy" behaviors. In particular, cyclists might be tempted to merge after glancing in the mirror, without actually looking back. It may also encourage late merges. A mirror makes it easier to do certain things certain ways, but it is not required for safety (with the appropriate practices and techniques, you will be no more or less safe depending on whether you have a mirror).

What debate? If you have any additional clarifying information, that would be helpful. These look like pretty typical suburban roads and intersections to me. Is there something that makes them unique?

My "analysis" indicates that your dad was looking backwards as he entered and crossed an intersection because he did not start merging left sufficiently early. Do you disagree?

Have hammer, found nail.

I wasn't there. He doesn't remember. There isn't enough specificity in the police report to know. How did your "analysis" come to this conclusion? I don't think it is even certain that he was hit, was avoiding a hit and fell, or fell through loss of control. He speculates that he had his head turned, but this is just based on the location of his injuries.

Which intersection and how far left should he be? When I was commuting through here, I'd be in the inside lane; but I still almost go hit by a car turning left from the east parking lot entrance onto evergreen to make a right turn at cornell. Cars shoot out of the parking lot entrance because there is a lot of traffic, 4 lanes to cross, and short sight lines because of the hill.

FWIW, I would merge left where you stated you would, perhaps before this point. I'd be next to the median and follow into the furthest right left turn lane. I almost got hit from a car coming from my left.

There are other factors feeding each of these three areas. That you focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors, shows a lack of real understanding of modern accident theory and analysis.
Oh, please.

The fact that I focus primarily (not only) on the bicyclist behavior is because this is a forum for bicyclists and the overall theme is about how to make cycling safer.

How can you say that I "focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors"? One of the main reasons to move left at intersection approaches is to affect the behavior of the drivers: to make you more visible and predictable to them, so that they are less likely to drive right in front of you.

Consider the Wilberding case, where a major contributory cause was the motorist's behavior: turning left right in front of him. It is the consideration of the motorist's behavior that forms the basis for concluding that the Wilberding was too far right as he approached and crossed that intersection. In your case, it was considering the behavior of the driver who pulled out in front of you that lead to the suggestion that you should have been further left much earlier. How can you say that I "focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors"?

FWIW, I would merge left where you stated you would, perhaps before this point. I'd be next to the median and follow into the furthest right left turn lane. I almost got hit from a car coming from my left.
You say, "almost". That's good. Tell me, was looking ahead a factor in the hit being almost rather than actual?
If you had had your eyes closed, or your head turned around to look back as you entered the intersection, would you have been able to avoid a crash?

Oh, please.

The fact that I focus primarily (not only) on the bicyclist behavior is because this is a forum for bicyclists and the overall theme is about how to make cycling safer.

How can you say that I "focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors"? One of the main reasons to move left at intersection approaches is to affect the behavior of the drivers: to make you more visible and predictable to them, so that they are less likely to drive right in front of you.

Consider the Wilberding case, where a major contributory cause was the motorist's behavior: turning left right in front of him. It is the consideration of the motorist's behavior that forms the basis for concluding that the Wilberding was too far right as he approached and crossed that intersection. In your case, it was considering the behavior of the driver who pulled out in front of you that lead to the suggestion that you should have been further left much earlier. How can you say that I "focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors"?

Do cyclists have any other diagnostic tools besides "move left"? I seems to be your only advice. What happens if moving left is not practical from a real time (as opposed to a hind sight) perspective?

Have hammer, found nail.

I wasn't there. He doesn't remember. There isn't enough specificity in the police report to know. How did your "analysis" come to this conclusion? I don't think it is even certain that he was hit, was avoiding a hit and fell, or fell through loss of control. He speculates that he had his head turned, but this is just based on the location of his injuries.

I've already explained how I came to the conclusion that he was too far right, probably still in the bike lane, when he got hit. Actually, didn't he hit the car that pulled out in front of him?

If he had already been in the left lane, then he could have been focusing ahead and would have had better sight lines to and from any cars coming out of the parking lot to the west. Of course, we can't definitely rule out the possibility that, as he was approaching the intersection, he was already in the left lane, looking ahead, but still didn't see the car that pulled out, and the driver of that car didn't see him, until it was too late. But, considering how difficult it seems to be to convey to him that that's where he should have been, for the reasons provided, it seems highly unlikely that that could be the way he happened to be riding that day. What we've never seen from him is even a hint that it would even occur to him to start merging left that early.

You say, "almost". That's good. Tell me, was looking ahead a factor in the hit being almost rather than actual?
If you had had your eyes closed, or your head turned around to look back as you entered the intersection, would you have been able to avoid a crash?

Perhaps. But much is left for chance.

If I didn't set up to take a dive over the drivers trunk, meaning I consciously let go of the brakes and started the movements which would have led to my hands leaving the handlebars to start the diving motion, I would've hit the car. As it was, by releasing the brakes, I regained enough steering authority to swerve enough to avoid the car (all instinctual or a natural result of the dynamics of the situation, this was not some magical discovery I happened upon and consciously used to my advantage).

I saw the car as it was pulling away from the intersection, and I followed it as it continued on a collision course. Ironically, if I had been in the bike lane (or just outside of it), say, to make a right turn instead of a left, I probably would have avoided even the near miss, lending credence to Robert's emphasis on space. It is not only visibility concerns, and it is not only space concerns which dictate lane positioning. Mostly, as I've found as I gain it, it is experience which is the best dictator of optimum lane positioning. Training gets you on the right page, but experience does the fine adjustments. Until better engineering controls are built into the roads, it will always be this way, I'm afraid.

I've already explained how I came to the conclusion that he was too far right, probably still in the bike lane, when he got hit. Actually, didn't he hit the car that pulled out in front of him?


Who knows? Last I heard, all he knows is that the fall happened very fast to have hit head first and he might have been looking backwards at the time given the injuries to his hands. But this is speculation even on his part, as he does not have memories of the incident. Personally, I think a car changed lanes in front of him, clipping his front wheel and causing the wheel to lock sideways and flipping him over the handlebars. A sudden lose of steering authority is the only way I know of that will cause a crash which happens so fast as to not be telegraphed to the cyclist. He would not have hit squarly on his head unless the crash was not so telegraphed. He has judo training and knows how to fall without hurting himself, provided the fall is telegraphed.

But this is speculation on the part of all parties involved here. No more, no less.

Do cyclists have any other diagnostic tools besides "move left"? It seems to be your only advice. What happens if moving left is not practical from a real time (as opposed to a hind sight) perspective? I think "move left" is probably the most likely effective diagnostic because of the tendency of most cyclists to ride too far to the right most of the time.

Most crashes occur at intersections (meaning intersections with any place even a driveway, not just streets), and that's where destination positioning applies, but most cyclists continue to maintain their "as far right as practicable" speed positioning position even as they approach and cross an intersection without so much as quick glance back.

It's interesting that you ask about insufficient time to move left. In most cases, including in that of your Dad's case and the Wilberding case, the reasons to move left are not based on a suddenly developing situation that requires one to react in real-time. I mean, intersections are there long before you show up. This is my main objection to the Hurst/Bluejay approach which does seem to depend much more dynamic conditions to determine lane position. In particular, Bluejay (bicyclesafe.com) talks about moving left only to avoid a right hook or right cross (which depends on noticing a right-turner approaching from a behind, or someone to the right), and specifically does not mention it as a technique to avoid a left cross (which is what happened to WIlberding). So, according to Bluejay, your dad should not have moved left unless he noticed the pickup to the right. Of course, that begs the question: what happens if you don't notice the truck in time, not to mention that you might not notice the truck precisely because you're too far right. That's why I prefer the VC approach of moving left precisely because it's an intersection, regardless of who is there or not: it doesn't depend on you having to notice someone who may not even be possible to notice until you move left. The only exception is when the sight lines are excellent and there is same direction faster traffic passing me that clearly is not turning right. If there is any question about whether they might turn right, I negotiate to merge left.

So the answer is, if you're riding appropriately, you're looking and planning ahead, and generally won't need to react to conditions in real-time in order to know to merge left.

Having said that, when somebody passes you then suddenly slows to possibly turn right into (say) a midblock apartment driveway, it's good to have your instincts honed, to look back and merge left, instead of passing on the right.

I'm kind of rambling here. Do you have a specific scenario in mind? I can't think of one where there is insufficient time to merge left.

Mostly, as I've found as I gain it, it is experience which is the best dictator of optimum lane positioning. Training gets you on the right page, but experience does the fine adjustments. Until better engineering controls are built into the roads, it will always be this way, I'm afraid. :beer:

I'm happy to say I completely agree with that. The only reason to read a book or take a course (or participate in this forum) is to jumpstart the brain, thinking in the right direction. The main goal of teaching lane positioning is to get across the concept that there is better and not-so-good lane positioning, and where is "best" often depends on changing conditions, and there are often multiple equally good choices. Once the basic ideas are conveyed, then each cyclist must experiment and try different things on his or her own. That's the only way it's going to get ingrained so that the knowledge is available at an instintual level and can be utilized in real-time. But, there are basics, like: don't wait until the last second to bolt across 2 lanes of traffic at once to get into the left turn lane.

:beer:

I'm happy to say I completely agree with that. The only reason to read a book or take a course (or participate in this forum) is to jumpstart the brain, thinking in the right direction. The main goal of teaching lane positioning is to get across the concept that there is better and not-so-good lane positioning, and where is "best" often depends on changing conditions, and there are often multiple equally good choices. Once the basic ideas are conveyed, then each cyclist must experiment and try different things on his or her own. That's the only way it's going to get ingrained so that the knowledge is available at an instintual level and can be utilized in real-time. But, there are basics, like: don't wait until the last second to bolt across 2 lanes of traffic at once to get into the left turn lane.

Gee now that both of you are sharing brew... consider that this thinking should probably be conveyed to road engineers too... how many road engineers have riden a bike seriously... I mean more than park riding with children.

Now imagine if you will if road designing engineers (the very folks of "the science of bike lanes") actually were put into the position of riding several hundred miles on the bike lanes they design. I wonder if said bike lanes might then be viewed in a whole new way.

HH has had the experience of arguing with a road engineer (as have I) about what works and doesn't work in light of bikes and roads... it is amazing how disconnected some engineers can be.

Helmet Head,

There are two things here. This is a downhill section, on a curve. If I saw a car, there would only be one car visible, because of the curve and the lay of the roadway.

Concerning looking backwards, what you don't realize is that the lack of memory extends backward in time from the accident, to several, perhaps as many as 5, seconds prior to the impact. My physician (a trauma doc) said this was pretty normal for a person suffering a concussion. I was traveling at about 25 mph, going downhill (pretty easy for me on a downhill). Here's a calculation:

25 miles/hr x 5280 ft/mile = 132000 feet/hr
132000 ft/hr / 60min/hr = 2200 ft/min
2200 ft/min / 60 sec/min = 36.67 ft/sec

Traveling at 37 feet per second, in five seconds I would travel about 180 feet. So I really don't know anything about the last 180 or so feet prior to my accident. That's a lot of territory, and since I don't know where I was at the point of impact, I really don't understand how you and John Forester can presume to know. In accident reconstruction, we do not speculate, but set up potential scenarios and work from there. I set up several above, and don't know which is the actual one.

I think this is one of the things that really turns me off to Vehicular Cycling is the willingness to blame the cyclist for an accident. It is one thing to take total responsibility, as you, JF and others have indicated a cyclists should do. It is quite another, in an actual accident such as mine or Michael Wilberding, to assign blame based upon very little information on the actual accident. All accidents have multiple causes (Multiple Causation Theory, a concept developed by Dan Peterson in his book, Techniques of Safety Management, copyright for the First Edition was 1971). This means that in these types of accidents, you cannot assign total blame on the cyclist, which is exactly what the VC concept seems to do. It has been done by you and John Forester in many accidents that we have discussed over the last several years, and is one of the basic VC concepts that I am challenging.

Getting back on-topic, this multiple-causation theory of accidents is part of the science of accident reconstruction. One of the newer (1990) theories of accident causation is one I've published papers on, and that is the Human Factors Theory of Accident Causation developed by David DeJoy, and which I've somewhat modified (from: DeJoy, David M., “Toward a comprehensive human factors model of workplace accident causation,” Professional Safety Magazine, Volume 35, Number 5, May 1990, page 14). You can see from this model that all accidents come down to human error, but that doesn't preclude more than one human from contributing. There are person-machine communication problems, the environment (which can be divided up), and decision-making considerations (both the bicyclist and the driver(s), in this case). There are other factors feeding each of these three areas. That you focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors, shows a lack of real understanding of modern accident theory and analysis.

John

I have not assigned any blame, so far as I know, in the two car-bike collisions that are being discussed. I don't know enough and haven't investigated, even to the extent of examining a map of one of the areas. It is just plain silly of you to claim that I believe in the single cause of accidents. I earn my living by investigating bicycling accidents and testifying in court on my conclusions.

Incidentally, the only group of people who will pay good money for accurate information about bicycling are attorneys with bicycle accident cases. All others want propaganda instead. Of course, my information may not assist an attorney, in which case he won't use it.

All causes can be traced back to fantastic limits. After all, you would not have slipped and sprained your ankle had not your parents engaged in sexual activity some nine months before you were born. There is what the law calls proximate cause, those causes which rather directly caused the accident. In some cases, there is one proximate cause. Consider the typical motorist left turn car-bike collision. If the cyclist had been traveling lawfully along the road, the improper left turn by the left-turning motorist is the single proximate cause. There may have been other subsidiary causes. One possible cause is distraction to the motorist produced by children in his car behaving improperly. Well, that's his responsibility, and he is supposed to pay attention to his driving until he can stop his car and rectify the children's behavior. On the other hand, a different subsidiary cause might be a drive-by shooting episode that caused the motorist to hurriedly turn left to escape it, and because of which he failed to notice the oncoming cyclist as he turned.

I know of an accident in which a cyclist descending a twisting two-lane road skidded out on gravel. Who should be at fault? The curve where the gravel appeared was partially shaded by trees, and at that particular time of day the dappled shade produced by the trees concealed the presence of the gravel. Do you blame God for having the sun shine? However, the gravel was spread across the road by the actions of fast motorists going up the hill, who cut the curve into the drainage ditch, thus causing their tires to project the gravel across the road. Which one of them should be blamed? More however. The local government knew about this situation, because it had more than once repaired the ditch and cleared the gravel, when it could have paved the gutter, so to speak, so that the fast uphill motorists would have had firm pavement for their tires. In all this mess, there were multiple causes.

And with respect to JoeJack's comments... First, sorry about the east/west mixup! Second, when I said I would be in the bike lane going EAST on Evergreen between 185th and Town Center (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=45.53773,-122.867057&spn=0.001586,0.00254&z=19), I was assuming significant volumes of significantly faster same direction traffic, and that I would merge left out of the bike lane as I approached the intersection with Town Center.

Maybe I'm envisioning this wrong so bear with me. Assuming a significant enough volume of traffic and a significant enough difference in speeds between the cyclist and motorists to justify using a bike lane on a multilaned road, how do you manage to merge right into the bike lane after crossing 185th and then have time to negotiate a merge back out of the bike lane before Town Center? In my experience, it would be impossible unless you were going almost as fast as traffic, in which case I wouldn't want to be in the bike lane at all. Even at 10mph (15 ft/sec) you are clearing that intersectionless stretch in 10-15 seconds. Assuming a slight delay of the first motorist passing and my typical experience of at least a few seconds before someone thinks about letting me in, we're down to 5-10 seconds in the bike lane. To me, it wouldn't be worth it. That's enough time for maybe 2-3 motorists to get by. I encounter roads like this with much higher speeds where merging left isn't even remotely possible without a good 1/10th of a mile to negotiate. There's not much left to do except either stay in the lane and hold some people up or stay right and ride slow prepared for right hooks and motorists inching out of driveways. I go for the former unless I'm going particularly slow and have very good sightlines (in which case I just stay right as merging is not going to happen).

Helmet Head,

I'll comment specifically later (perhaps much later, as there is a lot going on right now). But just so you'll know, from a reconstruction of the accident, here are some specifics:

--I landed on my head first, with my head tucked. This shattered my helmet (which shouldn't happen to a helmet) and on the second bounce (probably), gave me a three-staple gash in my scalp. I also had scrapes on my right temple (still have some embedded dirt there).
--My second point of contact was my shoulder, where I had significant road rash.
--My third point of significant contact was probably almost simultanious, and was the right side of my upper forearm, and my hip.
--I had no injury to my right hand, and a sprained left thumb. This would indicate that both of my hands wore on the bike, probably with the right hand on the upper part of the bar, and my left hand on the left brake (which, during the crash, would have pushed against my thumb and sprained it).

There are two scenarios that could account for this, one that I went over the bike's bars and impacted on my head, but there are problems with that in that my bike did not receive that kind of damage. The bike was basically undamaged except for the right handlebar tape being rubbed off, and the fender on the rear torn. The other scenario, which I feel is more probable, is that my front wheel touched the rear part of the rear wheel of the other vehicle, which would have been spinning upwards as my wheel was spinning downwards. This would give significant momentum straight up, where I may have turned over and landed on my head, then shoulder, then arm-hip at the same time. My hip suffered a significant trauma, separating the skin from the underlying tissue with edema under it, which had to be drained for two months thereafter. My head hit on the right side, as evidenced by the compression of the helmet's foam to about half it's original depth.

Now, I just told you that I have no memory for about five seconds, or about 180 feet, in front of that intersection. Yet you still maintain that I was signaling during the accident itself. My last memory was of looking backwards, but that was quite a distance before the intersection. However, the injuries I received say that both my hands were on the bike, and that I was trying to evade, indicating (if you will follow me here) that I was looking ahead at the time.

If I should be in the left lane prior to any of the parking exists, then I should have been in the left lane from the start, as there are multiple exits onto NW Evergreen Parkway. This is what you are telling me above.

I'll discuss the other issues later. I have to close now, and ride home.

John

Maybe I'm envisioning this wrong so bear with me. Assuming a significant enough volume of traffic and a significant enough difference in speeds between the cyclist and motorists to justify using a bike lane on a multilaned road, how do you manage to merge right into the bike lane after crossing 185th and then have time to negotiate a merge back out of the bike lane before Town Center? In my experience, it would be impossible unless you were going almost as fast as traffic, in which case I wouldn't want to be in the bike lane at all. Even at 10mph (15 ft/sec) you are clearing that intersectionless stretch in 10-15 seconds. Assuming a slight delay of the first motorist passing and my typical experience of at least a few seconds before someone thinks about letting me in, we're down to 5-10 seconds in the bike lane. To me, it wouldn't be worth it. That's enough time for maybe 2-3 motorists to get by. I encounter roads like this with much higher speeds where merging left isn't even remotely possible without a good 1/10th of a mile to negotiate. There's not much left to do except either stay in the lane and hold some people up or stay right and ride slow prepared for right hooks and motorists inching out of driveways. I go for the former unless I'm going particularly slow and have very good sightlines (in which case I just stay right as merging is not going to happen). I seem to require very little distance/time to negotiate and execute a merge left, on the order of a few seconds (1-3), so 10-15 seconds seems like a fairly long time, long enough to let a few cars go by. Also, if the stream is constant and obviously not turning right, I will use the stream as "blockers" and often stay in the bike lane and not even merge left.

Note: I believe this is a downhill, which makes it relatively quick and easy for a motorist to slow down from his 35 to my 25; less than a second.

It's interesting that you ask about insufficient time to move left.

You are misinterpreting. I never said anything about insufficient time. I was talking about making the decision in real time, as opposed to analysing what the decision should have been in hindsight.

In hindsight, what might have been a good reason position oneself in a certain way in real time, might have been overruled by other factors that were unknown to the cyclist at the time. In my near accident, for example, it might have been beneficial for me to not change lanes into the inside lane so soon. It put me squarely into a gap which I should have known would have been exploited by a motorist on the sidestreet. Perhaps I should have been wearing a mirror to keep my eyes forward. Perhaps if I went a bit slower or started braking sooner.

There are a million different hindsight decisions one could have made. The only one that matters is the one which occurs in real time. That is why the blind application of the "move further left" analysis is wrongheaded; because it doesn't take into account any of the other factors in the situation. Hence, a hammer looking for a nail.

Helmet Head,

I'll comment specifically later (perhaps much later, as there is a lot going on right now). But just so you'll know, from a reconstruction of the accident, here are some specifics:

--I landed on my head first, with my head tucked. This shattered my helmet (which shouldn't happen to a helmet) and on the second bounce (probably), gave me a three-staple gash in my scalp. I also had scrapes on my right temple (still have some embedded dirt there).
--My second point of contact was my shoulder, where I had significant road rash.
--My third point of significant contact was probably almost simultanious, and was the right side of my upper forearm, and my hip.
--I had no injury to my right hand, and a sprained left thumb. This would indicate that both of my hands wore on the bike, probably with the right hand on the upper part of the bar, and my left hand on the left brake (which, during the crash, would have pushed against my thumb and sprained it).

There are two scenarios that could account for this, one that I went over the bike's bars and impacted on my head, but there are problems with that in that my bike did not receive that kind of damage. The bike was basically undamaged except for the right handlebar tape being rubbed off, and the fender on the rear torn. The other scenario, which I feel is more probable, is that my front wheel touched the rear part of the rear wheel of the other vehicle, which would have been spinning upwards as my wheel was spinning downwards. This would give significant momentum straight up, where I may have turned over and landed on my head, then shoulder, then arm-hip at the same time. My hip suffered a significant trauma, separating the skin from the underlying tissue with edema under it, which had to be drained for two months thereafter. My head hit on the right side, as evidenced by the compression of the helmet's foam to about half it's original depth.

Now, I just told you that I have no memory for about five seconds, or about 180 feet, in front of that intersection. Yet you still maintain that I was signaling during the accident itself. My last memory was of looking backwards, but that was quite a distance before the intersection. However, the injuries I received say that both my hands were on the bike, and that I was trying to evade, indicating (if you will follow me here) that I was looking ahead at the time.
John, where did you get the idea that I maintain that you were signaling during the accident itself?



If I should be in the left lane prior to any of the parking exists, then I should have been in the left lane from the start, as there are multiple exits onto NW Evergreen Parkway. This is what you are telling me above.
Where did you get the idea that you should be in the left lane prior to any of the parking exits?

Perhaps it would help if you would quote and highlight the exact words of mine that cause you to conclude something about what I said, as opposed to a nebulous "you still maintain" (without any indication of where I have ever said that, much less "maintain" it) or "what you are telling me above" (without so much as a post number, much less an identification of the exact words that caused you to think this)? Otherwise, you keep challenging ideas and concepts that no one is actually asserting. It makes it difficult to have a coherent and productive discussion. Thanks.

You are misinterpreting. I never said anything about insufficient time. I was talking about making the decision in real time, as opposed to analysing what the decision should have been in hindsight.

In hindsight, what might have been a good reason position oneself in a certain way in real time, might have been overruled by other factors that were unknown to the cyclist at the time. In my near accident, for example, it might have been beneficial for me to not change lanes into the inside lane so soon. It put me squarely into a gap which I should have known would have been exploited by a motorist on the sidestreet. Perhaps I should have been wearing a mirror to keep my eyes forward. Perhaps if I went a bit slower or started braking sooner.

There are a million different hindsight decisions one could have made. The only one that matters is the one which occurs in real time. That is why the blind application of the "move further left" analysis is wrongheaded; because it doesn't take into account any of the other factors in the situation. Hence, a hammer looking for a nail. Ah.

I try to avoid giving any and all suggestions/advice that rely on hindsight regarding the particulars of any given situation. I try to make suggestions that are exclusively based on following VC principles.

In the Wilberding case, the suggestion that he probably would have been better off had he been further left is based on basic VC destination positioning and the assumption there was no faster same direction traffic at the time (there was a gap at least long enough for the left turner who turned left in front of him to turn left - plus, the lack of same direction witnesses indicates the gap was probably fairly long).

In your dad's case, moving into the left lane is also basic VC. When your Dad wrote to Mr. Forester about it (wasn't it like 10 years ago?) that's the first thing he said: he waited too long to start moving left. That's also obvious to me, and consistent with how you say you ride through there.

None of this relies on hindsight regarding incident-specific details that the cyclist had no way of knowing "in real time".

If you ever see me give advice based on what appears to be hindsight, please let me know, because I try very hard to avoid doing that. The whole point of VC (and defensive driving for that matter) is that it tells you the "right" thing to do based on basic principles, not hidden incident-specific information.