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

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).


It is a significant distance between 185th and cornell. You are crossing 185th on evergreen, which places you on the right side of the road on evergreen between 185th and cornell naturally. Town center is not a major road and you would simply guard against right hookers by moving to the bike lane line or into the adjacent lane by a couple feet while crossing that intersection. It is pretty flat until round about where the grey car is, then it slopes down. The travel time between 185th and cornell is around 1 or 2 minutes, I think, certainly not 5-10 seconds. Looking at the scale of the map, it is about a third of a mile; about a minute at 20 mph. That's a long time to hold a lane.

John's accident, and my near accident, is right around the unmarked intersection just above the intersection of evergreen with cornell. Mine was within this unmarked intersection; I'm not sure where, exactly, John's was.

Brian, look at JJ's post again. He's referring to the stretch between 185th and Town Center, not 185th and Cornell, when he talks about 5-10 seconds.

Brian, look at JJ's post again. He's referring to the stretch between 185th and Town Center, not 185th and Cornell, when he talks about 5-10 seconds.

That section is irrelevent in this discussion. The intersection in question is 1/3 of a mile down the road.

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"?


Here we go again, all the typical ingredients...
1. Portland (Beaverton, close enough)
2. intersection
3. bike lane
4. classic left hook, the most common type of car-bike collision.
despite the fact that the cyclist did not leave the bike lane to use destination positioning when crossing an intersection, particularly with oncoming traffic that potentially could (and obviously did) turn left across his path, he is thought to be "a cautious and safe bicycle rider".

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.

Heck, as motorcyclists know all too well, you can't even rely on left-turners to see you if you're in the middle of the traffic lane. Distracted drivers hit even other cars this way all too often. Effective Cycling and LAB's Road classes teach the instant turn, and to be prepared to execute it, for this type of situation precisely. But by staying in the bike lane out of the left-turner's primary zone of attention, and not being prepared to be overlooked, the cyclist is really stacking the odds against himself.

A true tragedy, particularly when these types of collisions are known to be easy avoid through minor alteration in the cyclist's behavior alone. Tragic.

What's possibly even more tragic is that Oregon cycling advocates are buying into this idea that the only solution here is to punish motorists until motorists change - that the cyclist was doing nothing wrong - that there should be no emphasis on getting cyclists to merge left out of the danger zone in these situations. That's a real tragedy too.

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

Please reconcile these two statements.

John

Reconcile? They are consistent with each other. The post from the Wilberding thread totally recognizes The Multiple Causation Theory. It acknowledges contributory causes on the part of the motorist as well as the cyclist, and the focus is primarily on the cyclist's behavior (though taking into account the motorist's behavior, especially with respect to how it is affected by the cyclist's behavior). It's a perfect example of how I do not "focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors", which is your claim.

What do you think requires reconciling?

That section is irrelevent in this discussion. The intersection in question is 1/3 of a mile down the road. There are two discussions here. One is about your Dad's crash. The other is about his "VC experiment". As I understand it, he ran the VC experiment, riding outside of the bike lane, on this earlier part eastbound between 135th and Town Center. At least that's how I understood it, stated it, and he never corrected it. But I'm starting to wonder about how closely he reads these posts, so maybe I got it wrong, and he never noticed.

Reconcile? They are consistent with each other. The post from the Wilberding thread totally recognizes The Multiple Causation Theory. It acknowledges contributory causes on the part of the motorist as well as the cyclist, and the focus is primarily on the cyclist's behavior (though taking into account the motorist's behavior, especially with respect to how it is affected by the cyclist's behavior). It's a perfect example of how I do not "focus only on the bicyclist behavior, without considering the other factors", which is your claim.

What do you think requires reconciling?
So the motorist has no accountability in your opinion; the entire responsibility for these kinds of accidents rides on the bicyclist, right? With this kind of insight, it will be difficult to ever change motorist behavior, which contributes mightily to these kinds of accidents. This is the kind of culture change I am promoting. It is a change in attitude that you, Helmet Head, need to make as well as the general public. As long as people like you say that everything involving a bicyclist accident is the responsibilty of the bicyclist, we will never change the motoring public's way of driving. You say you recognize the multiple causation theory, but you do nothing about a prominent part of the bicycling accident equation. That is the issue I don't like from the VC proponents.

John

another thread degenerated into a debate of Helmet Head's off-base, autocentric theories and nothing left of the original topic- sad.

So the motorist has no accountability in your opinion; the entire responsibility for these kinds of accidents rides on the bicyclist, right?
No, John, absolutely wrong. In this particular case, because of certain circumstances, even the victim's family agreed with the decision not to prosecute the motorist. But, in general, I certainly believe the motorist's culpability should be considered, and he should be held legal accountable. But I also believe in a forum like this, and, more importantly, in the cyclist's mind, the motorist's accountability should be considered irrelevant. The motorist's accountability will not reduce the number of months the cyclist needs to recover. The motorist's accountability will not bring the cyclist back from the dead.


With this kind of insight, it will be difficult to ever change motorist behavior, which contributes mightily to these kinds of accidents. This is the kind of culture change I am promoting. It is a change in attitude that you, Helmet Head, need to make as well as the general public. As long as people like you say that everything involving a bicyclist accident is the responsibilty of the bicyclist, we will never change the motoring public's way of driving. You say you recognize the multiple causation theory, but you do nothing about a prominent part of the bicycling accident equation. That is the issue I don't like from the VC proponents.

John
My primary concern is what a cyclist can effectively do to reduce the likelihood of cyclist injury and death, including concerning how his behavior affects the behavior of motorists around him.

a lot of science here...... :rolleyes:

No, John, absolutely wrong. In this particular case, because of certain circumstances, even the victim's family agreed with the decision not to prosecute the motorist. But, in general, I certainly believe the motorist's culpability should be considered, and he should be held legal accountable. But I also believe in a forum like this, and, more importantly, in the cyclist's mind, the motorist's accountability should be considered irrelevant. The motorist's accountability will not reduce the number of months the cyclist needs to recover. The motorist's accountability will not bring the cyclist back from the dead.(emphasis changed by jcr)


My primary concern is what a cyclist can effectively do to reduce the likelihood of cyclist injury and death, including concerning how his behavior affects the behavior of motorists around him.
But you go beyond that, and try to convince others that the motorist has no culpability in these kinds of situations.

I think perhaps that this may be a generational problem, and that you and others have grown up with the concept that the motorist does not have responsibility for the environment around him or her. Under this concept, if something happens, even if it is reasonably foreseeable, you will excuse the motorist and say that the bicyclist has the main responsibility for keeping himself safe. But in order to do that, (s)he needs to be cycling vehicularly. Under this assumption, motorcyclists should be more visible, as they definately are riding VC. There should be no car/motorcycle crashes, because the motorcycle is visible, riding in the lane with the cars.

Well, I grew up in a different era. My Dad, when he taught me, said that I needed to look through things to see the environment around my car. I needed to look way ahead, and anticipate the traffic, the animals, the kids, the bicyclists and what they may do. Because as a motorist, with the car being as manouverable as it is, I had a responsibility to not hit or collide with other things. It was my responsibility to avoid hitting a deer, for instance, to be able to see it on the periphery of my vision, to look through folliage to see eyes reflecting at night. If I approached bicyclists, I was to give way, to pass well clear of them, as they could suddenly veer for any number of reasons. This was especially true of kids riding bikes. Give them a good 6-10 feet when passing, as that if they fell over, you would not hit them, my Dad said.

Now, getting back to your stance, you (and presumably VC techniques) have nothing to say about the minority of drivers who drive badly, even if that driver will cause a fatal or potentially fatal accident. You place all your eggs in the bicyclists basket, not perhaps realizing that under many circumstances, the bicyclist has limited options. Over and over, you have shown that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety.

What I'm saying is that, by ignoring the second half of the accident equation, you are not allowing fixes to occur in the system. In doing this, you are actually promoting motorists irrersponsibility. In safety activities, it is imparative for the safety of all that responsibilities of all the parties be defined, that the authority to act is given to those parties, and that all parties be held accountable for their action. By actively promoting only those accountabilities of the bicyclist, you are saying (and with you, as you are on this forum a major voice, VC concepts) that the motorists are not going to be held accountable for these accidents. What I am saying to you is that without a balanced approach, your effect on accident rates will be very limited. When I analyze an accident, I look at every factor, and try to put into effect safety measures that will preclude each factor from occurring again. You, Helmet Head, by your stance above, are ignoring major portions of the accident equation--your effect will therefore be limited. What I'm telling you is that even if every cyclist in the nation suddenly rode vehicularly, you would not prevent a majority of the cycling accidents where the motorist's actions contribute to the accident.

John

a lot of science here...... :rolleyes:
Religions tend to ignore science in favor of their own dogma.

John

But you go beyond that, and try to convince others that the motorist has no culpability in these kinds of situations.

I think perhaps that this may be a generational problem, and that you and others have grown up with the concept that the motorist does not have responsibility for the environment around him or her. Under this concept, if something happens, even if it is reasonably foreseeable, you will excuse the motorist and say that the bicyclist has the main responsibility for keeping himself safe. But in order to do that, (s)he needs to be cycling vehicularly. Under this assumption, motorcyclists should be more visible, as they definately are riding VC. There should be no car/motorcycle crashes, because the motorcycle is visible, riding in the lane with the cars.

Well, I grew up in a different era. My Dad, when he taught me, said that I needed to look through things to see the environment around my car. I needed to look way ahead, and anticipate the traffic, the animals, the kids, the bicyclists and what they may do. Because as a motorist, with the car being as manouverable as it is, I had a responsibility to not hit or collide with other things. It was my responsibility to avoid hitting a deer, for instance, to be able to see it on the periphery of my vision, to look through folliage to see eyes reflecting at night. If I approached bicyclists, I was to give way, to pass well clear of them, as they could suddenly veer for any number of reasons. This was especially true of kids riding bikes. Give them a good 6-10 feet when passing, as that if they fell over, you would not hit them, my Dad said.

Now, getting back to your stance, you (and presumably VC techniques) have nothing to say about the minority of drivers who drive badly, even if that driver will cause a fatal or potentially fatal accident. You place all your eggs in the bicyclists basket, not perhaps realizing that under many circumstances, the bicyclist has limited options. Over and over, you have shown that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety.

What I'm saying is that, by ignoring the second half of the accident equation, you are not allowing fixes to occur in the system. In doing this, you are actually promoting motorists irrersponsibility. In safety activities, it is imparative for the safety of all that responsibilities of all the parties be defined, that the authority to act is given to those parties, and that all parties be held accountable for their action. By actively promoting only those accountabilities of the bicyclist, you are saying (and with you, as you are on this forum a major voice, VC concepts) that the motorists are not going to be held accountable for these accidents. What I am saying to you is that without a balanced approach, your effect on accident rates will be very limited. When I analyze an accident, I look at every factor, and try to put into effect safety measures that will preclude each factor from occurring again. You, Helmet Head, by your stance above, are ignoring major portions of the accident equation--your effect will therefore be limited. What I'm telling you is that even if every cyclist in the nation suddenly rode vehicularly, you would not prevent a majority of the cycling accidents where the motorist's actions contribute to the accident.

John

Baloney at great length. Vehicular cycling advocates do not relieve motorists of responsibility for their mistakes, because that has nothing at all to do with the issue. Vehicular cycling advocates say that cycling in the vehicular manner will reduce car-bike collisions because a large proportion of car-bike collisions are caused by the cyclist riding in a non-vehicular manner. Furthermore, vehicular cycling advocates point out that the cyclist who understands how to operate in traffic also is best equipped to see when some other driver is making a mistake, and therefore to take preventive action. We, as vehicular cycling advocates, are addressing what is the greater side of the problem with actions and understanding that are best done by cyclists. Nothing in that relieves motorists of their responsibility.

Your argument that "I think perhaps that this may be a generational problem, and that you and others have grown up with the concept that the motorist does not have responsibility for the environment around him or her." is absolute baloney. I started motoring in 1946 in California, and I never, ever, heard anything like this said to me, or about any driving that I ever heard of. As far as I can see, this is just one more bogus argument invented to oppose vehicular cycling.

^^^
Ah, California. That explains it then.

You know, there is more to the world than California.

But you go beyond that, and try to convince others that the motorist has no culpability in these kinds of situations.

I think perhaps that this may be a generational problem, and that you and others have grown up with the concept that the motorist does not have responsibility for the environment around him or her. Under this concept, if something happens, even if it is reasonably foreseeable, you will excuse the motorist and say that the bicyclist has the main responsibility for keeping himself safe. But in order to do that, (s)he needs to be cycling vehicularly. Under this assumption, motorcyclists should be more visible, as they definately are riding VC. There should be no car/motorcycle crashes, because the motorcycle is visible, riding in the lane with the cars.

Well, I grew up in a different era. My Dad, when he taught me, said that I needed to look through things to see the environment around my car. I needed to look way ahead, and anticipate the traffic, the animals, the kids, the bicyclists and what they may do. Because as a motorist, with the car being as manouverable as it is, I had a responsibility to not hit or collide with other things. It was my responsibility to avoid hitting a deer, for instance, to be able to see it on the periphery of my vision, to look through folliage to see eyes reflecting at night. If I approached bicyclists, I was to give way, to pass well clear of them, as they could suddenly veer for any number of reasons. This was especially true of kids riding bikes. Give them a good 6-10 feet when passing, as that if they fell over, you would not hit them, my Dad said.

Now, getting back to your stance, you (and presumably VC techniques) have nothing to say about the minority of drivers who drive badly, even if that driver will cause a fatal or potentially fatal accident. You place all your eggs in the bicyclists basket, not perhaps realizing that under many circumstances, the bicyclist has limited options. Over and over, you have shown that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety.

What I'm saying is that, by ignoring the second half of the accident equation, you are not allowing fixes to occur in the system. In doing this, you are actually promoting motorists irrersponsibility. In safety activities, it is imparative for the safety of all that responsibilities of all the parties be defined, that the authority to act is given to those parties, and that all parties be held accountable for their action. By actively promoting only those accountabilities of the bicyclist, you are saying (and with you, as you are on this forum a major voice, VC concepts) that the motorists are not going to be held accountable for these accidents. What I am saying to you is that without a balanced approach, your effect on accident rates will be very limited. When I analyze an accident, I look at every factor, and try to put into effect safety measures that will preclude each factor from occurring again. You, Helmet Head, by your stance above, are ignoring major portions of the accident equation--your effect will therefore be limited. What I'm telling you is that even if every cyclist in the nation suddenly rode vehicularly, you would not prevent a majority of the cycling accidents where the motorist's actions contribute to the accident.

John

Thanks for this... I tend to agree with your statements... and even Forester has mentioned the shared responsibilities of all users of the road. (it is in one of these VC threads... sigh... I am not going to search for it right now).

I think what HH is aluding to however is that many of the cycling accidents now taking place are not those where "the motorists actions do contribute" to the accident... such as a cyclist riding the wrong way at night on a quiet country lane. However, HH and JF like to find the fault in what a cyclist is doing based on the simple assumption that so few cyclists are truly vehicular in their actions... thus the cyclist IS often the weak link. The problem is that they look under that "rock" first... without knowing all the circumstances of the situation... making their analysis from long distance and without all the facts. (JF may not be as guilty as no doubt on occasion he is paid to do on-site analysis).

BTW I learned how to drive in Texas, much later than JF or yourself... and I too was taught to drive in the manner you describe.

But you go beyond that, and try to convince others that the motorist has no culpability in these kinds of situations. John, please support your assertions about what I have written with actual quotes. Never have I tried to convince anyone that the motorist has no culpability in these kinds of situations. See how I used the word never, and even put in in bold and italics? That's because I know I've never done what you claim here that I have. Of course, I can't prove a negative. But I can make my position so absolute, as I have, that it would be trivial to disprove, if it were false. The ball is in your court. If you can't show my absolute assertion to be false (with my actual words), then please stop asserting its opposite.


I think perhaps that this may be a generational problem, and that you and others have grown up with the concept that the motorist does not have responsibility for the environment around him or her. Under this concept, if something happens, even if it is reasonably foreseeable, you will excuse the motorist and say that the bicyclist has the main responsibility for keeping himself safe. But in order to do that, (s)he needs to be cycling vehicularly. Under this assumption, motorcyclists should be more visible, as they definately are riding VC. There should be no car/motorcycle crashes, because the motorcycle is visible, riding in the lane with the cars. Total absurdity based on a false premise: my support of the concept that the motorist has no responsibility.


Well, I grew up in a different era. My Dad, when he taught me, said that I needed to look through things to see the environment around my car. I needed to look way ahead, and anticipate the traffic, the animals, the kids, the bicyclists and what they may do. Because as a motorist, with the car being as manouverable as it is, I had a responsibility to not hit or collide with other things. It was my responsibility to avoid hitting a deer, for instance, to be able to see it on the periphery of my vision, to look through folliage to see eyes reflecting at night. If I approached bicyclists, I was to give way, to pass well clear of them, as they could suddenly veer for any number of reasons. This was especially true of kids riding bikes. Give them a good 6-10 feet when passing, as that if they fell over, you would not hit them, my Dad said. My era ain't that different from yours. I was taught the exact thing some 15 years later, and I'm sure you taught Brian the same thing about 15 years after that.


Now, getting back to your stance, you (and presumably VC techniques) have nothing to say about the minority of drivers who drive badly, even if that driver will cause a fatal or potentially fatal accident. You place all your eggs in the bicyclists basket, not perhaps realizing that under many circumstances, the bicyclist has limited options. Over and over, you have shown that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety. Practically speaking to cyclists IN THIS FORUM regarding how the cyclist should think about it, yes I do believe and have argued that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety. This is a major theme in Robert Hurst's book, by the way. Key excerpts can be found in the OP and some followup posts in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467).

Legally, culturally, socially speaking, NO WAY do I believe or have argued that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety.



What I'm saying is that, by ignoring the second half of the accident equation, you are not allowing fixes to occur in the system. In doing this, you are actually promoting motorists irrersponsibility. Dude, you are confusing what I say in a forum for bicyclists with what I say when I'm, for example, talking to a traffic engineer. Believe me, it's not the same thing!

When Hurst writes in his book for bicyclists, "From now on -- if some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's" (p. 64) can you recognize that he's addressing only bicyclists? Do you think he would stand up at a AAA convention and say, "From now on -- if you break every law in the book and run over some bastard on a bike in the process, it will be his fault and nobody else's, certainly not yours"? Of course not. Context matters. Why can you interpret Hurst's comments in context - a book aimed at bicyclists - and have such a hard time putting the context of my comments in context - an internet forum aimed at bicyclists?


In safety activities, it is imparative for the safety of all that responsibilities of all the parties be defined, that the authority to act is given to those parties, and that all parties be held accountable for their action. For the record, I agree 100%.


By actively promoting only those accountabilities of the bicyclist, you are saying (and with you, as you are on this forum a major voice, VC concepts) that the motorists are not going to be held accountable for these accidents. First, this aspect of the cycling philosophy that I espouse is adopted from Hurst, not from Forester or "VC" (though I believe it is implicit in VC, as it is in defensive driving, but Hurst is explicit about it). If you think either Hurst or I are saying that the motorists are not going to be held accountable for these accidents then you're not trying to understand what we're saying.


What I am saying to you is that without a balanced approach, your effect on accident rates will be very limited. When I analyze an accident, I look at every factor, and try to put into effect safety measures that will preclude each factor from occurring again. You, Helmet Head, by your stance above, are ignoring major portions of the accident equation--your effect will therefore be limited. What I'm telling you is that even if every cyclist in the nation suddenly rode vehicularly, you would not prevent a majority of the cycling accidents where the motorist's actions contribute to the accident.
Now, that I disagree with. First, I do look at every factor. We've been over this before. In the Wilberding case we considered the sun in the driver's eyes and the fact that he turned left in front of the cyclist. How we prevent sober motorists from turning in front of inattentive bicyclists (or motorcyclists) that they genuinely did not notice while driving toward the sun I simply do not know. Again, remember, even the family agreed with the decision not to prosecute the motorist. And even if there was reason, prosecuting the motorist would not bring Mr. Wilberding back from the dead, nor would it do anything to prevent any other tragedy like this.

Second, let us assume the Multiple Causation Theory is correct. That means if you can remove any one of the multiple causes, you can usually prevent the crash. Therefore, if cycling vehicularly removes at least one significant cause, the crash will be prevented. So, if the cyclist doing something non-vehicular is one of the significant contributory multiple causes in most bike-crashes, even when it is not the primary (or proximate) cause, then if every cyclist suddenly rode vehicularly, that would remove one of the significant multiple causes in most bike-crashes, and would prevent most of them.

But you go beyond that, and try to convince others that the motorist has no culpability in these kinds of situations.

I think perhaps that this may be a generational problem, and that you and others have grown up with the concept that the motorist does not have responsibility for the environment around him or her. Under this concept, if something happens, even if it is reasonably foreseeable, you will excuse the motorist and say that the bicyclist has the main responsibility for keeping himself safe. But in order to do that, (s)he needs to be cycling vehicularly. Under this assumption, motorcyclists should be more visible, as they definately are riding VC. There should be no car/motorcycle crashes, because the motorcycle is visible, riding in the lane with the cars.

Well, I grew up in a different era. My Dad, when he taught me, said that I needed to look through things to see the environment around my car. I needed to look way ahead, and anticipate the traffic, the animals, the kids, the bicyclists and what they may do. Because as a motorist, with the car being as manouverable as it is, I had a responsibility to not hit or collide with other things. It was my responsibility to avoid hitting a deer, for instance, to be able to see it on the periphery of my vision, to look through folliage to see eyes reflecting at night. If I approached bicyclists, I was to give way, to pass well clear of them, as they could suddenly veer for any number of reasons. This was especially true of kids riding bikes. Give them a good 6-10 feet when passing, as that if they fell over, you would not hit them, my Dad said.

Now, getting back to your stance, you (and presumably VC techniques) have nothing to say about the minority of drivers who drive badly, even if that driver will cause a fatal or potentially fatal accident. You place all your eggs in the bicyclists basket, not perhaps realizing that under many circumstances, the bicyclist has limited options. Over and over, you have shown that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety.

What I'm saying is that, by ignoring the second half of the accident equation, you are not allowing fixes to occur in the system. In doing this, you are actually promoting motorists irrersponsibility. In safety activities, it is imparative for the safety of all that responsibilities of all the parties be defined, that the authority to act is given to those parties, and that all parties be held accountable for their action. By actively promoting only those accountabilities of the bicyclist, you are saying (and with you, as you are on this forum a major voice, VC concepts) that the motorists are not going to be held accountable for these accidents. What I am saying to you is that without a balanced approach, your effect on accident rates will be very limited. When I analyze an accident, I look at every factor, and try to put into effect safety measures that will preclude each factor from occurring again. You, Helmet Head, by your stance above, are ignoring major portions of the accident equation--your effect will therefore be limited. What I'm telling you is that even if every cyclist in the nation suddenly rode vehicularly, you would not prevent a majority of the cycling accidents where the motorist's actions contribute to the accident.

John
Well said, John, but I'm afraid that you're probably wasting your breath.

HH:

Wow, what a scattershot. It would be interesting to see a complete analysis of an accident coming from you. I've never seen it. Basically all your "analyses" come out as follows:

1) you state the cyclist should have been further left
2) people come back at you with contributing factors which complicate the situation
3) you protest that, no, none of these factors matter, the cyclist should have been futher left
4) it degenerates into everyone calling everyone else names.

Next time, why not do the full analysis up front, then start a conversation about what the cyclist should've done to avoid or mitigate the situation given the full analysis? You'd gain some respect, and someone might learn something.

Well said, John, but I'm afraid that you're probably wasting your breath.
Of course he is wasting his breath. The entire diatribe is based on the bizarre and absurd premise that I and/or "VC" think that motorists should not be held accountable for their actions.

HH:

Wow, what a scattershot. It would be interesting to see a complete analysis of an accident coming from you. I've never seen it. Basically all your "analyses" come out as follows:

1) you state the cyclist should have been further left
2) people come back at you with contributing factors which complicate the situation
3) you protest that, no, none of these factors matter, the cyclist should have been futher left
4) it degenerates into everyone calling everyone else names.

Next time, why not do the full analysis up front, then start a conversation about what the cyclist should've done to avoid or mitigate the situation given the full analysis? You'd gain some respect, and someone might learn something.
It's been over a year and we've learned almost nothing substantive about the Wilberding case other than what we knew from the beginning: cyclist was riding in a shaded bike lane with the sun to his back, staying in the bike lane even though he was approaching an uncontrolled intersection where potential left-turning oncoming traffic was approaching. From what we can tell, the cyclist never realized the peril that he was in, which is obvious to us not only with hindsight, but by simply applying basic Forester/VC principles, defensive driving theory, well-known motorcyclist safety measures, "Hurst's space/vigilance/respsonsibility advice" (for lack of a better term), or my "trust but verify" cycling philosophy.

From the beginning, as I always do in my analysis of these tragedies (particularly tragic because they are often so preventable through changes in cyclist behavior alone, if you believe in the Multiple Causation Theory) in this forum aimed at cyclists, I focused on the cyclist's behavior and how it contributed to the crash. My aim is to help cyclist's realize that if they're careful, obey the rules, think about how they ride and why, and pay attention, they are much less likely to be involved in crashes like this themselves, no matter how badly the motorists out there are driving. Note that that does not mean you will definitely avoid all crashes if you do this. It means you will definitely be much less likely to be involved in such crashes. For me, practically speaking, I believe the likelihood is so low that I don't worry about it any more than I worry about being hit by a meteor or crashing in an airliner.

Hoist by your own, very small, petard once again. Yes, Pete, those quotes are consistent with what I claimed above:



Practically speaking to cyclists IN THIS FORUM regarding how the cyclist should think about it, yes I do believe and have argued that it is the bicyclist who must be the owner of the entire responsibility for his/her own safety.

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.

I guess that's the difference between us. I seem to require a much longer length of time to get a reaction from a motorist suitable enough for me to feel safe merging in front of them. The bigger the speed differential and the greater the traffic density, the longer it takes. I also don't feel particularly comfortable riding to the right of traffic past intersections to the point that I generally avoid doing so if there is another lane for me to be easily passed in. In the few right hook situations that I've been in, the motorist who right hooked me showed no signs of turning until they were actually past me when they started braking heavily (traffic moving at ~50mph, me at ~20) and merging right in front of me. The traffic density left me with no other option than to brake and slow before the motorist turned right.

I guess that's the difference between us. I seem to require a much longer length of time to get a reaction from a motorist suitable enough for me to feel safe merging in front of them. The bigger the speed differential and the greater the traffic density, the longer it takes. I also don't feel particularly comfortable riding to the right of traffic past intersections to the point that I generally avoid doing so if there is another lane for me to be easily passed in. In the few right hook situations that I've been in, the motorist who right hooked me showed no signs of turning until they were actually past me when they started braking heavily (traffic moving at ~50mph, me at ~20) and merging right in front of me. The traffic density left me with no other option than to brake and slow before the motorist turned right.
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I seem to be able to "read" drivers enough to know whether they might be turning right or not. If I ever get burned, I'll probably get more assertive too.

Helmet Head,

The following quote by you was posted on the Bicycle Transportation Allianec's BTA Blog, and was clearly aimed at more than bicyclists (or if it wasn't, you will find many more people on this blog than just bicyclists, such as those involved in the actual investigation):


Comments by: Serge I.

First, my condolences to the family and loved ones of Mike Wilberbing. While l also agree with Katie, I wouldn’t call this an “accident”. This type of car-bike collision, a left hook (some call it a left cross), happens alll too often, and is actually easily preventable. I live in San Diego, California, where I never see a bike lane striped solid all the way to the intersection like the first photo shows on this one. In California, cyclists are generally required to ride in bike lanes, but with many exceptions. One of the exceptions is whenever approaching an intersection. I’m an avid cyclist and cycling advocate, and when I look at the first photo, I instinctively feel an urge to look behind in preparation to move left, into a more a conspicuous position in the main traffic lane, where oncoming left-turners are much more likely to be paying attention. Staying in that bike lane, I would feel like a sitting duck, and certainly would not be surprised if I were overlooked by a left-turner. If there was faster same-direction traffic overtaking me, then of course I would not swerve in front of them. However, this same traffic would be “blocking” for me, so the need would arguably not be there.

Further, the second photo makes it clear that while the sun may have not been in the driver’s eyes, there is a broad contrast between the bright sun and dark shaded area in front of the trees where the cyclist would be in the bike lane. I would really like to see a similar photo without the van blocking the view to the bike lane, and with a cyclist in the shadow-obscured bike lane approaching the intersection. I suspect he would be very difficult to see, assuming the driver even bothered to remove his or her focus from the oncoming traffic lane and making sure there are no pedestrians crossing, or about to cross.

I know it’s very cathartic for cyclists to seek revenge on the motorist in tragedies like this, but I think it’s much more effective to instead focus our efforts on teaching each other how to avoid situations like this in the first place. Even if this driver is sent to prison, I doubt that will make an iota of difference in terms of getting any other drivers to pay attention any differently than they do today. Look at that first photo again, and figure out how you can develop a natural urge in yourself to want to avoid riding in that bike lane, and, instead, to be further left where you are more visible and predictable.

I also suggest that advocates work on getting bike lanes removed, or at least changing the striping from solid to dashed per the California convention, at approaches to intersections. Through cyclists should be discouraged from staying at the side of the road in the “right turn zone” when crossing intersections at 15-20+ mph! Instead, bike lanes like this one encourages these cyclists to stay too far to the right.

Serge

Aug 17 2006 at 1:05 pm
From:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2006/08/10/bicyclist-becomes-gumshoe-in-response-to-fatal-crash/
This is why I don't like your philosophy, and cannot accept everything that the VC advocates, and that includes Hurst's writings on the matter of responsibility. With just about everything in a complex society, there comes shared responsibility. To say to the bicyclist that only he or she is completely responsibile for their safety ignores the societal safeguards of shared responsibility. When you make a quote like the one above, which is likely to be read by the family involved, by others in the investigation, etc., you are lending credance to the thought that the driver does not have responsibility to clear himself in these kinds of situations. Allowing this to occur time after time gives the impression, shown now in auto ads, and in judicial decisions, that the driver is not at fault, that it's just about always the bicyclist's responsibility to ensure that he or she is not hit by a car, and that the driver (unless it's apparent (s)he is impared by a substance) is not going to suffer consequences from his or her actions.

In behavioral safety, we discuss the "A, B and C" of behavior modification.


A = antecedent: using the antecedent to predict correct behavior, such as the use of signs, iseffective only if you know what will happen after the event. The signs say to do something; they are the triggers. "Stop"signs at intersections are an example.

B = Behavior: Watching and observing actual behavior as it is occurring is an effective predictor of future behavior. Behavior modification depends upon knowing current behavior, and the culture which allows it or encourages it.

C = Consequences: The consequences actually control the behavior the next time the same or similar events take place.
From: John C. Ratliff's notes from the Keynote Speach by Dr. Krause, American Society of Safety Engineers, March 2-3, 1988
Each of the consequences can be either positive or negative, sooner or later, certain or uncertain. Consequences that are positive, occur sooner rather than later, and are certain lead more to behavior change, or reinforce existing behavior. If the consequences are negitive, but still occur sooner rather than later, and are certain rather than uncertain, you will still see behavior being modified.

In these cases that you have analyzed, your lack of consequences for the motorist, and trying to form the opinion that only the cyclists is responsible, contributes to motorist irresponsible behavior. That is because there are no negative consequences to that behavior, or very few, when a bicyclist is involved. The positive consequence, that the driver is exhonerated, that he was doing nothing wrong, and the fact that those happen very quickly, and are mostly assured by your stance on motorists responsibilty, ultimately reinforce irresponsible driving. The fact that you would place this kind of information on a local blog, where everyone will likely read it, also helps assure that motorists will not be held responsible for their actions.

John

This is why I don't like your philosophy, and cannot accept everything that the VC advocates, and that includes Hurst's writings on the matter of responsibility.
Why?


With just about everything in a complex society, there comes shared responsibility.
I agree 100%.


To say to the bicyclist that only he or she is completely responsibile for their safety ignores the societal safeguards of shared responsibility.
No, saying to the bicyclist that only he or she is completely responsibile for their safety does not ignore the societal safeguards of shared responsibility. It simply recognizes that those safeguards are not full proof, and the prudent cyclist should be prepared for that as much as possible.


When you make a quote like the one above, which is likely to be read by the family involved, by others in the investigation, etc., you are lending credance to the thought that the driver does not have responsibility to clear himself in these kinds of situations.
How do you conclude that when I clearly acknowledge the possibility that the driver might even be imprisoned for his behavior (which turned out not to be the case, but that's beside the point)?


Allowing this to occur time after time gives the impression, shown now in auto ads, and in judicial decisions, that the driver is not at fault, that it's just about always the bicyclist's responsibility to ensure that he or she is not hit by a car, and that the driver (unless it's apparent (s)he is impared by a substance) is not going to suffer consequences from his or her actions.
Please stop trying to assign a view to me that I do not hold.


In these cases that you have analyzed, your lack of consequences for the motorist, and trying to form the opinion that only the cyclists is responsible, contributes to motorist irresponsible behavior.
If the motorist never reads what I write, how does it do that? Further, YOUR lack of emphasis on the consquences for the cyclist, and trying to form the opinion that only the motorist is responsible, contributes to cyclist irresponsible behavior.


That is because there are no negative consequences to that behavior, or very few, when a bicyclist is involved.
I have no significant influence over whether there are negative consequences for a driver.
In a cycling forum, I might have some influence on the behavior of cyclists, so that's where I focus.


The positive consequence, that the driver is exhonerated, that he was doing nothing wrong, and the fact that those happen very quickly, and are mostly assured by your stance on motorists responsibilty, ultimately reinforce irresponsible driving. The fact that you would place this kind of information on a local blog, where everyone will likely read it, also helps assure that motorists will not be held responsible for their actions.

Do you believe the motorist was responsible for turning left in front of a speeding (i.e., going too fast for the conditions) inattentive cyclist emerging out of shadow-obscured bike lane? If so, how so?

Of course he is wasting his breath. The entire diatribe is based on the bizarre and absurd premise that I and/or "VC" think that motorists should not be held accountable for their actions.
As far as I can tell, John's assumption is correct, and you prove it time and again with your absurd rantings here.

Yes, Pete, those quotes are consistent with what I claimed above:
Yeah Pete, haven't you heard?


RH Blame is what happens when it's already too late. Obsession with blame is good for insurance purposes but not so good for safety purposes.
Right. So blame is for after-the-fact, financial, legal, etc....


He does explain why he believes we're all better off if we choose to take full responsibility for our safety, and avoid depending on others as much as possible. To the extent that we have to trust others, that's the price we pay in order to be able to ride; it's not an excuse to blame them if they don't meet our requirements.
It must be a different kind of blame he is using here, a few posts later in the same thread.


But being 'totally responsible' does not mean having total control and being capable of handling anything that may happen.

What I should have said was "positive thinking".

This attitude [referring to the attitude of taking total responsibility]

The idea is to have the cyclist feel totally responsible for his own safety, in order to give him internal motivation in accordance to that belief.

In other words: It's an attitude, but I do take it literally.

Are you holding me responsible for the fact that the word "responsible" has multiple meanings in English?

Finally, and this is my main point: I think the amount of whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.

This sounds like after-the-fact behavior. I doubt HH was speaking about cyclists whining seconds before an accident.


Repeat after me: They [car drivers] are not responsible. They are NOT responsible. They are NOT responsible for their actions.

Edit: The word "responsible" has multiple meanings in the English language. The meaning I intended above is:
capable of being trusted : a responsible adult.
Obviously, if one interprets my point using the meaning of "responsible" to be "having an obligation to do something", then my point becomes nonsense, and you could play silly semantics games all day.



That use of responsibility, by the way, is consistent with everything else I've ever posted on this forum with respect to the topic taking responsibility for your safety.

As far as I can tell, John's assumption is correct, and you prove it time and again with your absurd rantings here.

Ah, yes, Randya. I see that you possess the faith that passeth all understanding. So be it.

Ah, yes, Randya. I see that you possess the faith that passeth all understanding. So be it.
F U 2

:)

Finally, and this is my main point: I think whining, complaining and blaming of motorists both in general and in particular situations that exists in the cycling community, including in this A&S forum, indicates an attitude that mostly does not reflect the perspective Hurst preaches in his book.

This sounds like after-the-fact behavior. I doubt HH was speaking about cyclists whining seconds before an accident.

No, it's before-the-fact behavior. It's not seconds before, but it might be minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or years before a potential crash. It's about how the attitude you have, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and, most importantly, minutes and seconds prior to any potential crash, about how much control and responsibility you have to avoid such a crash, and how much control and responsibility you believe motorists have to avoid such a crash, and the role that attitude plays in influencing your behavior and ability to avoid such a crash.

It's not seconds before, but it might be minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or years before a potential crash.
Oh, so it's me whining about a guy who might hypothetically cut me off next month?

Do you really believe that cyclists who whine, complain, or blame motorists, are doing this about hypothetical future motorist-cyclist interactions? I always thought it was about past experiences, for them or their fellow cyclists.

I would say your assessment of cyclist behavior and attitudes is a "before-the-fact" assessment.

Helmet Head,

I just returned to work from home for a lunch break with my wife. I went over, and came back, on the same tract that I used to take prior to my accident, down Evergreen Parkway all the way to Cornell, and back again from Cornell to work, which is close to Cornellius Pass Road. In the section going downhill, I took the inside lane from the second intersection after 185th, all the way to the bottom of the hill at Cornell. There were no problems at all, and the traffic was light.

On my return, I kept in the bike lane only at the bottom of the hill, to the first intersection. I then moved over to the right to middle of the lane next to the bike lane. I again had no problems, and traffic again was light. Those who wanted to get around me, went to the next lane. I counted seven intersections from the bottom of the hill to 185, which took me about two and a half minutes. That's seven intersections in about 3/4 of a mile. When I got to the intersection near 185 (one before), I got into the bike lane and proceeded to the front of the line of about 5 cars. I promptly got cut off by a car crossing to a right turn lane. With the recumbant, it's pretty easy to see what's happening, so it was no problem.

In the next section, which is just about two miles long, there are ten intersections. I alternated in and out of the bike lane, depending upon the situation. Again, cars simply took the next lane beside me. They had no problem, and this time, there was no honking at all.

For this section from Cornell west to my workplace, about 2.75 miles long, there are 17 intersections with roads. Care to comment on using the bike lane now?

John

Helmet Head,

I just returned to work from home for a lunch break with my wife. I went over, and came back, on the same tract that I used to take prior to my accident, down Evergreen Parkway all the way to Cornell, and back again from Cornell to work, which is close to Cornellius Pass Road. In the section going downhill, I took the inside lane from the second intersection after 185th, all the way to the bottom of the hill at Cornell. There were no problems at all, and the traffic was light.

On my return, I kept in the bike lane only at the bottom of the hill, to the first intersection. I then moved over to the right to middle of the lane next to the bike lane. I again had no problems, and traffic again was light. Those who wanted to get around me, went to the next lane. I counted seven intersections from the bottom of the hill to 185, which took me about two and a half minutes. That's seven intersections in about 3/4 of a mile. When I got to the intersection near 185 (one before), I got into the bike lane and proceeded to the front of the line of about 5 cars. I promptly got cut off by a car crossing to a right turn lane. With the recumbant, it's pretty easy to see what's happening, so it was no problem.

In the next section, which is just about two miles long, there are ten intersections. I alternated in and out of the bike lane, depending upon the situation. Again, cars simply took the next lane beside me. They had no problem, and this time, there was no honking at all.

For this section from Cornell west to my workplace, about 2.75 miles long, there are 17 intersections with roads. Care to comment on using the bike lane now?

John
I think of the space to the right, whether it is demarcated as a bike lane or not, as space I use to allow faster traffic to pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so. 17 intersections in 2.75 miles means about 850 feet between intersections on average. Unless they are evenly spaced, that means some of the sections are probably over 1000 feet long. It takes about 45 seconds to go 1,000 feet at 15 mph. That's a very long time during which a lot of cars could pass.

I suspect I would use that space that happens to be demarcated as a bike lane quite a bit to allow faster traffic to pass along that 2.75 mile stretch, depending on the volume of motor traffic of course. Also, I would be more likely to use that space on the flats and uphill than on the downhill.

Why?


I agree 100%...


No, saying to the bicyclist that only he or she is completely responsibile for their safety does not ignore the societal safeguards of shared responsibility. It simply recognizes that those safeguards are not full proof, and the prudent cyclist should be prepared for that as much as possible...


How do you conclude that when I clearly acknowledge the possibility that the driver might even be imprisoned for his behavior (which turned out not to be the case, but that's beside the point)?...


Please stop trying to assign a view to me that I do not hold...


If the motorist never reads what I write, how does it do that? Further, YOUR lack of emphasis on the consquences for the cyclist, and trying to form the opinion that only the motorist is responsible, contributes to cyclist irresponsible behavior...


I have no significant influence over whether there are negative consequences for a driver.
In a cycling forum, I might have some influence on the behavior of cyclists, so that's where I focus...


Do you believe the motorist was responsible for turning left in front of a speeding (i.e., going too fast for the conditions) inattentive cyclist emerging out of shadow-obscured bike lane? If so, how so?
First, you must recognize that just because this is a cycling forum, it is not off limits to lawyers, motorists, and other interested parties. This is the internet, and anyone can access this material. An internet search will find it pretty easily.

Second, you have made yourself out to be an "expert" on vehicular cycling, and so you could have influence on both motorists and bicyclists. You must realize that just about every cyclist is also a motorist, so this hold no water at all. Concerning acknowledging that the cyclist may go to prison, that was a very small part of that thought. Here is what you said, in whole, in that paragraph:


I know it’s very cathartic for cyclists to seek revenge on the motorist in tragedies like this, but I think it’s much more effective to instead focus our efforts on teaching each other how to avoid situations like this in the first place. Even if this driver is sent to prison, I doubt that will make an iota of difference in terms of getting any other drivers to pay attention any differently than they do today. Look at that first photo again, and figure out how you can develop a natural urge in yourself to want to avoid riding in that bike lane, and, instead, to be further left where you are more visible and predictable.
What I am saying is that your attitude towards the motorist will continually let them off the hook of being responsible drivers. Remember the "A, B and C of behavioral safety" above. You said that what you state won't make any difference, but it does. It's out there, to be read by anyone. You don't know who reads it, nor whether Michael Wilberding's relatives read your statement. You cannot be sure, just as you cannot be sure about my bicycle accident, as I am not sure about it. But you state it in a way of certainty. It is this kind of attitude that I find unacceptable to my accepting the entire VC approach to cycling. You change this attitude, and you will gain a lot of following.

John

You change this attitude, and you will gain a lot of following.
http://dalecarnegie.wwwhubs.com/htwfaip.jpg

First, you must recognize that just because this is a cycling forum, it is not off limits to lawyers, motorists, and other interested parties. This is the internet, and anyone can access this material. An internet search will find it pretty easily.

Second, you have made yourself out to be an "expert" on vehicular cycling, and so you could have influence on both motorists and bicyclists. You must realize that just about every cyclist is also a motorist, so this hold no water at all. Concerning acknowledging that the cyclist may go to prison, that was a very small part of that thought. Here is what you said, in whole, in that paragraph:


What I am saying is that your attitude towards the motorist will continually let them off the hook of being responsible drivers. You said that what you state won't make any difference, but it does. It's out there, to be read by anyone. You don't know who reads it, nor whether Michael Wilberding's relatives read your statement. You cannot be sure, just as you cannot be sure about my bicycle accident, as I am not sure about it. But you state it in a way of certainty. It is this kind of attitude that I find unacceptable to my accepting the entire VC approach to cycling. You change this attitude, and you will gain a lot of following.

John I understand your argument. But why are you giving me, some anonymous nutcase on the internet, such a hard time for it? How much influence do you really think I might have on "lawyers, motorists, and other interested parties"?

Why are you and everyone not going after Robert Hurst for saying essentially the same thing, in arguably much harsher words? After all, he has published a book saying this, he is not anonymous, and his book and its popularity, not to mention his years of professional experience as a bike messenger, makes him a much more credible source.

If folks like you were also criticizing Hurst for writing stuff like "From now on -- if some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's", then I might see your arguments as being genuine.

Oh, so it's me whining about a guy who might hypothetically cut me off next month?

Do you really believe that cyclists who whine, complain, or blame motorists, are doing this about hypothetical future motorist-cyclist interactions? I always thought it was about past experiences, for them or their fellow cyclists.

I would say your assessment of cyclist behavior and attitudes is a "before-the-fact" assessment.
Then you're missing the point.

Perhaps Robert Hurst's words will help you understand.



From now on -- if some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place.

(page 64 of his book, 1st ed) Also: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467

I understand your argument. But why are you giving me, some anonymous nutcase on the internet, such a hard time for it? How much influence do you really think I might have on "lawyers, motorists, and other interested parties"?

Why are you and everyone not going after Robert Hurst for saying essentially the same thing, in arguably much harsher words? After all, he has published a book saying this, he is not anonymous, and his book and its popularity, not to mention his years of professional experience as a bike messenger, makes him a much more credible source.

If folks like you were also criticizing Hurst for writing stuff like "From now on -- if some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's", then I might see your arguments as being genuine.

Sorry. He manages to communicate what exactly he is talking about. The whole section is about the psychology of hording blame, from a personal point of view. It is not about some stranger (and usually an ill-informed one at that) on the web dumping blame onto the victim of an accident. This is the difference between you and him. You dump. He advises to hord.

He also has the depth of experience to know what he is talking about. You are not, shall we say, in the same category. By your own admission, you've never even had a fall, much less a run in with a car! You cannot tell me what it is like to be knocked helmet over heels by a driver screaming in from outerspace (or so it seemed in real time) and have to go back over that emotional event (they are all emotional, believe me) and critique yourself. And here you are presuming to tell someone what they should have done and you don't even know a fraction of what actually happened. Then, you go off half cocked and make your judgement before the discussion, blithly telling people that it is their responsibility to correct the facts that you screwed up, or the assumptions that you incorrectly assumed.

No, you are most certainly not in Robert Hurst's league.

Sorry. He manages to communicate what exactly he is talking about. The whole section is about the psychology of hording blame, from a personal point of view. It is not about some stranger (and usually an ill-informed one at that) on the web dumping blame onto the victim of an accident. This is the difference between you and him. You dump. He advises to hord. So the difference is that I apply what Hurt says in general to specific situations?

What about the specific example in his book where he "dumps" on the cyclist who is distracted by the attractive woman on a porch and ends up crashing into a Mercedes? How is that not an example of dumping blame onto the victim of an accident? He blames the cyclist for not paying attention, riding too fast, having poorly maintained brakes, and not respecting the dangerous blind alley which he knew about.

Edit: he has other examples too. What's the difference other than you like we he has to say overall, and you don't like what I say overall?

Edit 2: What about the "dumping of blame" that many people did here in a thread Chipcom started about the relative of someone at his work who got hit while doing something like riding at night without lights. I forget the details, but it was something blatantly dumb like that. What's the difference other than you happen to agree that the cyclist did something wrong in that case, and you don't agree that the cyclist did something wrong in cases where he went straight from the right side of the road? Where's the outrage?

Helmet Head,

First, I don't consider you "some nutcase on the internet," but a real, live person with whom I am discussing issues. I have also said that I disagree with some of what Robert has to say. This is especially true of the "total responsibility" paragraph above. Yes, we are responsible for our safety, but if I do get run down in the manner depicted in Robert's book (quote above), hopefully the motorist's insurance, and the motorist, will be held responsible.

From my perspective as a safety professional, our roadways are major disaster areas. Each day, we loose a lot of people to the types of driving behaviors that are coddled and encouraged each day in automobile-sponsored ads about cars. The ones currently runnig about parking cars through a skid, or the Lexus one about beating gravity, come to mind immediately. Bicyclist behavior is one, very important, aspect in bicycle accident prevention, but not the only one. Take a good look at the DeJoy Human Factors Model for Accident Causation, and you will see that there are a number of areas that have yet to be addressed. You talk about the bicyclist behaviors, and this comes under the "Decision-Making" box that DeJoy put together. If you look at the predisposing factors for not using VC riding techniques, they are in some ways cultural. You need culture change through training and education to get bicyclists to change their behavior. So what are the "Enabling Factors" to get VC going? Is it getting over a fear of traffic, and seeing the positive reactions of drivers to the cyclist? Or do the drivers actually cause the opposite effect, and predispose cyclists not to ride VC? If so, how do you overcome that limitation? What are the reinforcing factors that would keep riders from riding in a VC manner. Could it be real, or perceived, fear of being hit by a car? If so, how do you overcome it? Do you tell people that it's actually safer to be in the lane, and therefore dependent upon these drivers to see you and not run into you, even though this bicyclist sees about every sixth driver either eating while driving, talking on a cell phone, or tending to kids beside/behind them while they drive.

Then there are the "Management Control Strategies," which for a VC would be enhanced engineering for cars and bicyclists, lane-sharing strategies, dedicated bike roads, perhaps some blue striping where hazards that cannot be engineered exist, etc. "Self-protection strategies,
' which you have promoted include visibility, riding predictably, the advantages of being in the lane even if there is a bike lane, etc. Finally, there are organizational-management strategies, like educating the driving public that they cannot talk on cell phones, cannot drink/eat in the car, cannot use alcohol and other substances, and continue driving. Bicyclists need a voice in the community decisions concerning roads, intersections, etc.

All of this is happening to a small extent, but it needs to happen to a much larger extent. What I've written above is just from the top of my head, as I write, without much detailed thought being put into it. I haven't talked much about the "environment" aspects under this theory for bicyclists, but that would take a lot. The biomechanics of bicycles alone could be an entire chapter in a book.

What I'm saying here is that instead of simply, almost blindly, defending positions, we need to break through that, compromise a bit, and look at the entire injury/accident equation. On another thread, one person has stated that 600-700 fatalities to bicyclists a year is a small proportion of the entire fatality spectrum in the United States, and it is. But it is not if you or I are one of those fatalities.

John

So the difference is that I apply what Hurt says in general to specific situations?

What about the specific example in his book where he "dumps" on the cyclist who is distracted by the attractive woman on a porch and ends up crashing into a Mercedes? How is that not an example of dumping blame onto the victim of an accident? He blames the cyclist for not paying attention, riding too fast, having poorly maintained brakes, and not respecting the dangerous blind alley which he knew about.

Edit: he has other examples too. What's the difference other than you like we he has to say overall, and you don't like what I say overall?

It was a case study, and it turned out to be of himself anyway, as we later found out here. Case studies are one thing. What you do here is quite another. First of all, case studies are for learning and are self contained. They are usually well after the fact. They usually don't include real names, or any specific identifying information.

What you do here is blame a known and identified victim, based on very little evidence, and you don't stop to get all the facts, rather you lean on other people to "prove" you wrong by contributing information. This type of analysis (which you do extremely poorly - don't quit your day job) is only appropriate for an accident investigator, who actually gains all the facts, including those on the ground, and does the full and complete job without all the emotional appeals and without "teaching moments" used to preach a cause.

Not to mention that, even if you are presenting things as a case study, you are a terrible teacher. Your advice is always the same, and you don't allow room for discussion; rather you use the thread as a bully pulpit and hammer away. I'm afraid that you've turned many, many, many people away from the basic concepts of vehicular cycling. I am sad for that; vehicular cycling is a good technique and can benefit many people.

one person has stated that 600-700 fatalities to bicyclists a year is a small proportion of the entire fatality spectrum in the United States, and it is. But it is not if you or I are one of those fatalities.
There are probably even fewer people who win over $1,000,000 in lotteries per year. It's a tiny fraction of the total population, but it is not if you or I are one of those winners.

Never-the-less, I don't buy any lottery tickets. Do you?

There are probably even fewer people who win over $1,000,000 in lotteries per year. It's a tiny fraction of the total population, but it is not if you or I are one of those winners.

Never-the-less, I don't buy any lottery tickets. Do you?

If you take this tact, then why are you even here? You've stated many times before that your stated goal is to reduce the number of bicycling fatalities. John is on the same tract, but with different ideas. Is it so important to you that you win an argument that you cannot admit that others share your goal but are going about it in a different way and they might have a point! That, ohmygod, reasonable people might reasonably disagree... :eek:

Personally, I vote for 'some nutcase on the internet'. Maybe I'll start a poll...

;)

:lol:

:beer:

If you take this tact, then why are you even here? You've stated many times before that your stated goal is to reduce the number of bicycling fatalities. John is on the same tract, but with different ideas. Is it so important to you that you win an argument that you cannot admit that others share your goal but are going about it in a different way and they might have a point! That, ohmygod, reasonable people might reasonably disagree... :eek:
Brian, you're the one who chooses positions based on the positions of others, not me. You're the one who plays games here, not me (nor your Dad, thankfully). Since you're the one who always brings up this topic of winning arguments I cannot help but think it must be important to you. I know it is not to me. For the umpteenth time, all that is important to me is knowing the truth. One method in truth-seeking is to seek the opinions of others, and to find out the reasons they hold those opinions. One truth-seeking tool is debate, assuming everyone is participating in good faith (including defending ideas they genuinely believe in, and honestly wanting to know why others hold the opinions that they do).

Yes, of course I would like to reduce the number of fatalities. But I think what's more important is that cyclists and potential cyclists realize that cycling in traffic is reasonably safe today, without any changes in motorist behavior, especially for a cyclist who thinks about his cycling, pays attention, and obeys the rules.

Actually HH, you haven't really said anything recently that I could learn from. I'm just playing with you now.

It was a case study, and it turned out to be of himself anyway, as we later found out here. Case studies are one thing. What you do here is quite another. First of all, case studies are for learning and are self contained. They are usually well after the fact. They usually don't include real names, or any specific identifying information.

What you do here is blame a known and identified victim, based on very little evidence, and you don't stop to get all the facts,
Oh, Jeez, not this tired old argument again. We had a poll on this topic, what, 9 months ago? The majority agreed that the above in bold is a reasonable and appropriate thing to do in a cycling safety forum.



rather you lean on other people to "prove" you wrong by contributing information.
What do you mean by this?


This type of analysis (which you do extremely poorly - don't quit your day job) is only appropriate for an accident investigator, who actually gains all the facts, including those on the ground, and does the full and complete job without all the emotional appeals and without "teaching moments" used to preach a cause.
You give me too much credit. Again, all I do is create hypothetical scenarios based on real scenarios to serve the same purpose as a purely hypothetical scenario, but with the idea that the ones based on real scenarios might be more realistic and helpful than the purely hypothetical ones. This was all covered in that poll.


Not to mention that, even if you are presenting things as a case study, you are a terrible teacher. Your advice is always the same, and you don't allow room for discussion; rather you use the thread as a bully pulpit and hammer away. I'm afraid that you've turned many, many, many people away from the basic concepts of vehicular cycling. I am sad for that; vehicular cycling is a good technique and can benefit many people.
It's not me. It's people like you who disagree with me simply because I point out the problems with bike lanes and the reasons I believe they should be opposed by cycling advocates.

Actually HH, you haven't really said anything recently that I could learn from. I'm just playing with you now.
I think you've been mostly "just playing" for years. It's the Chipcom "just kidding" excuse. You switch back and forth between being serious and "just playing" without being clear on when you're doing what. That way you can play the "just kidding/playing" card whenever it suits you. In the end, it's all a big game for you. I have much more respect for your Dad, who has the wisdom to not waste his time here "just playing", and while he makes a lot of errors regarding my position, which can be very frustrating, I know he's always being genuine and honest.

...all I do is create hypothetical scenarios based on real scenarios to serve the same purpose as a purely hypothetical scenario, but with the idea that the ones based on real scenarios might be more realistic and helpful than the purely hypothetical ones...
doublespeak, head style

...Yes, of course I would like to reduce the number of fatalities. But I think what's more important is that cyclists and potential cyclists realize that cycling in traffic is reasonably safe today, without any changes in motorist behavior, especially for a cyclist who thinks about his cycling, pays attention, and obeys the rules.
Helmet Head,

Cycling in the USA is not as safe as swimming with sharks:D

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/attacks/relariskbike.htm

John