Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs Bike Lanes vs Incompetent Cyclists

This is sort of fall out from Forester’s talk at Google (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=301014)

For those of you who don’t know Baltimore it is a wonderful VC city, hardly any bike lanes, lots of nice 35mph or slower roads. It also has a nice grid network so if the road you are on is too busy for you, you can generally find a parallel one that’s better. It also has some nasty bike crash rates. Of course without any estimate on exposure it is hard to say just how nasty those nasty crash rates are. My instincts tells me there are fewer cyclists here then in NYC (for example) yet our injury rate is about three times higher and on average our fatality rate is slightly higher (per population.) NYC has bike lanes for crying out loud and we don’t so what gives? Well about a third of our bike crashes involve a wrong way cyclist and not to mention sidewalk cyclists. So thus the incompetent cyclist enters the picture.

Forester seems to negate the incompetent cyclists as they can be taught but at the same time he is doubtful that the established educational system will be receptive to proper (or even adequate) VC training. That leads me to wonder just how this miracle transformation is going to take place.

In regards to bike lanes, they don’t scare me one bit. If I am driving my car I chose the lane that facilities my travel and I do the same when I drive my bike. If I am driving a car and I don’t like the right hand lane because it is too narrow and right next to parked cars (we have that kind of thing in Baltimore) then I don’t drive there and most other drivers don’t either. If cyclists need to be taught VC for their safety and once taught they can ignore bike lanes when appropriate then I don’t see what all the fuss is about especially considering my next point.

Forester puts a lot of emphasis on studies and inferences on the superiority of VC over bike lanes but what about Bike Lanes vs the Incompetent Cyclists? I see studies that at least hint that bike lanes get most cyclists off the sidewalk and riding on the right side of the street. Other stats seem to indicate bike lanes increase the number of cyclists with the crash stats staying about the same. Which lead me to speculate that bike lanes at least trade non-vehicular cycling (really unsafe) with something that is relatively safer and if we can teach those cyclists VC we would have something safer yet.

Forester makes fun of the incompetent point stating something to the effect that as soon as you get on a bike you become incompetent in the eyes of law makers and road engineers but from looking at the city’s crash data it looks like we do have a lot of incompetent cyclists, I wish it was not true, but there it is.

forester's deep in denial RE: the efficacy of bike infrastructure. he can call it what he may, using his sophistic skills, but there's a lot of positive sides to bike infrastructure. and studies to back up their efficacy. despite forester claiming bike infrastructure is part of some 'inferiority conspiracy' 'developed by motorists'

what a crock. Bollocks.

I see studies that at least hint that bike lanes get most cyclists off the sidewalk and riding on the right side of the street. Other stats seem to indicate bike lanes increase the number of cyclists with the crash stats staying about the same. Which lead me to speculate that bike lanes at least trade non-vehicular cycling (really unsafe) with something that is relatively safer and if we can teach those cyclists VC we would have something safer yet.


These are exactly the reasons they put on-street cycling facilities in place. It's not an evil plot to push cyclists out of the way like the Paranoid Master of VC would have you believe. It's simply the way that works best to get cyclists to ride in the right direction and stay off the sidewalk, which is necessary for their safety and part of the government's job to protect the general welfare of the populace.

I see studies that at least hint that bike lanes get most cyclists off the sidewalk and riding on the right side of the street. Other stats seem to indicate bike lanes increase the number of cyclists with the crash stats staying about the same. Which lead me to speculate that bike lanes at least trade non-vehicular cycling (really unsafe) with something that is relatively safer and if we can teach those cyclists VC we would have something safer yet.
These are exactly the reasons they put on-street cycling facilities in place. It's not an evil plot to push cyclists out of the way like the Paranoid Master of VC would have you believe. It's simply the way that works best to get cyclists to ride in the right direction and stay off the sidewalk, which is necessary for their safety and part of the government's job to protect the general welfare of the populace. I think the truth lies in the middle.

I mean, "at least hint", "seem to indicate" and "lead me to speculate" are not very definitive about anything.

But it's enough to justify bike lanes for most because it provides the modicum of confirmation of their basic instinctive inclination that cars and bikes should be separated as much as possible.

This is why the anti-BL folks are so despised and seen as hating bike lanes in the cycling community. It's instinctive. Big, fast, heavy, smelly cars are fundamentally threatening to most bicyclists, and anything that even might protect them is seen in a positive light, hence the support for bike lanes. And anyone seen as opposing that perceived potential protection is seen as an enemy, instinctively.

It's certainly NOT "simply the way that works best to get cyclists to ride in the right direction and stay off the sidewalk". That's just another rationalization. At best, maybe it does that for a few cyclists here and there. Maybe.

Both sides can claim rationalization on the other side.
But if you claim the stated reasons of the other side are mere rationalization obscuring the true motivation, what is the true motivation?

The anti-BLers believe the true motivations of the pro-BLers is a mix of a desire to get bikes out of the way in order to not inconvenience motorists, an irrational fear of getting hit from behind, and an instinctive desire to separate cars from bikes.

The pro-BLers believe the true motivation of the anti-BLers are... what? That we hate bike lanes? But why? What are the real reasons we hate bike lanes?

That is what is missing from the pro-BL argument: an explanation for the true motivations of the anti-BLers that would allow them to discount the stated anti-BL reasons as rationalizations obscuring the true motivations.

Bottom line... for those of you who think Forester, I and other VC advocates hate bike lanes (which is not true - but that's beside the point if it's what you believe), what is your explanation for why we hate them?

These are exactly the reasons they put on-street cycling facilities in place. It's not an evil plot to push cyclists out of the way like the Paranoid Master of VC would have you believe. It's simply the way that works best to get cyclists to ride in the right direction and stay off the sidewalk, which is necessary for their safety and part of the government's job to protect the general welfare of the populace.

That's a stretch to say that it's "necessary for their safety" to get cyclists off sidewalks. What would help is for those sidewalk cyclists to understand right of way and how, when operating on a pedestrian facility, that one should operate as a pedestrian. Similarly, when operating on a vehicular facility, operating as a vehicle is the best way to operate, thus riding in the same direction as the rest of traffic is a given. Bike lanes do very little towards suggesting operating as a vehicle while in the roadway and encourage operating as if the cyclist is not part of vehicular traffic (and that's how the bike lane advocates want it to be).

joe, you think communities shouldn't try to get riders off the sidewalks and onto the roads? say what?

the studies and evidence supporting the efficacy of bike lane infrastructure are apparant. bike lanes increase road cycling, improve cyclists' road position and help reduce the indexed crash rates for cyclists.

bike lanes encourage greater use of bikes for transportation. bike lanes discourage curb hugging in wide outside lanes. bike lanes striped to the left of right hand turn lanes encourage proper destination positioning for thru bicycling.

bike infrastructure encourages road use by bicyclists. That IS an important advocacy goal.

joe, you think communities shouldn't try to get riders off the sidewalks and onto the roads? say what?

the studies and evidence supporting the efficacy of bike lane infrastructure are apparant. bike lanes increase road cycling, improve cyclists' road position and help reduce the indexed crash rates for cyclists.

bike lanes encourage greater use of bikes for transportation. bike lanes discourage curb hugging in wide outside lanes. bike lanes striped to the left of right hand turn lanes encourage proper destination positioning for thru bicycling.

bike infrastructure encourages road use by bicyclists. That IS an important advocacy goal.

I don't think that simply because there is a bike lane should the reason why cyclists transition from the sidewalk to the road. If they are going to ride incompetently, they are a hazard to themselves no matter where they ride. Remember Bek, a competent cyclist can use a road, a bike lane, a sidewalk, a sidepath, or a bike path. An incompetent cyclist could use an education.

... Of course without any estimate on exposure it is hard to say just how nasty those nasty crash rates are. My instincts tells me there are fewer cyclists here then in NYC (for example) yet our injury rate is about three times higher and on average our fatality rate is slightly higher (per population.) NYC has bike lanes for crying out loud and we don’t so what gives? Well about a third of our bike crashes involve a wrong way cyclist and not to mention sidewalk cyclists. So thus the incompetent cyclist enters the picture.

....
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but this statement invalidates any argument that can be made. We will all have different "gut feelings" about anything. Until someone can provide hard data (by which I mean, data not based on a feeling), the conversation will go in circles. No offense, but instincts don't count. Maybe your guesses are really wrong.

I don't think that simply because there is a bike lane should the reason why cyclists transition from the sidewalk to the road. If they are going to ride incompetently, they are a hazard to themselves no matter where they ride. Remember Bek, a competent cyclist can use a road, a bike lane, a sidewalk, a sidepath, or a bike path. An incompetent cyclist could use an education.

Agreed that someone is not "just going to transition..." However...

BL can indicate to some folks that the road is the place to ride. And they do use BL. I see this daily near a college on my route.

As far as education... yup, some of that could be used too... but as yet no one has offered any way of reaching those who need the education the most... those "least competent" cyclists that are not likely to seek such education on their own, are not likely to go to a bike shop and otherwise are not part of any formalized cycling organization. Since there is no way to reach these folks... BL offer at least some method of passive instruction... it is best to make BL as instructive as possible. Arrows pointing in the proper directions, signs (which are tiny compared to auto signs) that suggest when to leave the lane, BL that are dashed before intersections, and BL that end before intersections and are to the left of ROTL. Don't put BL in door zones. There are a host of things that can be done to improve what BL can do... a simple line of paint doesn't even come close.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpcd/chp/cvh/images/sept_03_summit/22.jpg

Guide these less skilled cyclists with passive instruction... just as signs out on freeways instruct motorists to Keep Right unless Passing, and Yield when Entering, and Watch for Trucks and Don't Litter and other such informative instructional signs. They exist for motorists... why not for cyclists?

Signs for motorists would help too... such as "Yield to Bikes" before crossing the BL.

http://www.autofreelife.info/images/yieldtobikes_big.jpg

Joe, I clicked your link from the helmet thread and followed my nose to this thread. Thanks for the unintentional intro to the madcap world of "VC".

So as an outsider, I'll just post a few thoughts.

First, I'll mention that I'm not completely inexperienced. I got on the bike more than twenty years ago, made a (bad) living at racing for a few years, and later earned a bit of a name as a track racing coach. That's not to blow my own horn -- it's hardly bragging material -- but I do want folks to know where I'm coming from.

Having said that, I like bike lanes. I don't know crap about the intent of VC advocates or their "enemies", I don't know anything about the politics of various road users, and I think riding on sidewalks is stupid, unless you're going 5 MPH. All I know is that I'm really, really slow compared to the majority of road users -- ie. car drivers -- and I like to get as far away from them as possible because they present a threat to my life. I nice wide bike lane does exactly that. I suppose there's some small merit to the idea that bike lanes encourage thinking of cyclists as a "separate class" of road user, but then, bicyclists as a separate class of road user is the reality. We're a lot different.

Now, all of this assumes that your roads are exactly like mine, which is of course a stupid assumption. Joe outlined his ideas of riding in the middle of the lane to me on another thread, and my first reaction was "Wow. That'll get you killed quick!" But when I thought about it in the context of the roads he typically rides, it began to make more sense. I might take the same approach, on his roads.

But on my roads, traffic tends to average around 60 MPH and is normally heavy enough that there are only a few seconds between the passage of each car. A cyclist in the middle of such a road is an active hazard. Bike lanes on those roads are absolutely wonderful and make cycling a relatively enjoyable experience rather than a harrowing adventure.

So maybe I'm a genius who will revolutionize the topic by pointing out that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work here. Or maybe not. :)

Six jours - it's not about the space, it's about the stripe.
If you remove the stripe, the space that "make[s] cycling a relatively enjoyable experience rather than a harrowing adventure" is still there.

Your comment, "Wow. That'll get you killed quick!" seems like you think faster traffic from behind is a significant threat. Do you?

Where do you live/ride?

BTW, I'm an hour north of Genec. The bottom picture he posted shows a fairly typical road around here, although the traffic in that exact shot would be considered fairly light. The speed limit on a street like that will typically be 45 MPH, and the average driver on a road like that is going to be travelling between 50-60 MPH, depending upon the number of lights and stop signs.

I wouldn't ride in the middle of those traffic lanes. It would irritate the daylights out of other road users at the very least, and I believe it would tremendously increase risk to the cyclist. Even with a mirror, the cyclist would be constantly monitoring traffic, signalling drivers, and dodging in and out of the bike lane. We tailgate in Southern California, and we drive fast and make sudden manuevers. It wouldn't be long before an angry motorist ran up behind a cyclist at high speed, made a sudden lane change, and then the tailgater behind him runs smack into the cyclist.

<edit> Interesting to note that Helmet Head lives in the same neighborhood. I honestly can't understand anyone making a habit of riding centered in traffic lanes in urban Southern California. I imagine anyone who does takes a lot of flak both from motorists and fellow cyclists.

head. space alone on the road does NOT encourage cycling. there are studies that observed better road position on roads with bike lanes, VERSUS curb hugging on wide outside lanes.

space alone on the road encourages curb hugging, sidewalk cycling, and ambigious lane sharing from vehicles.

you are so terribly anti-bike lane, yet you use them on your (sometimes) bike commutes- when you're NOT DRIVING.

Six jours - it's not about the space, it's about the stripe.
If you remove the stripe, the space that "make[s] cycling a relatively enjoyable experience rather than a harrowing adventure" is still there.

Your comment, "Wow. That'll get you killed quick!" seems like you think faster traffic from behind is a significant threat. Do you?

Where do you live/ride?

Thus proving that you have a paint phobia...if the line is meaningless and you ignore it as you claim, why do you obsess so much over it? Paint phobia, or because you are a one of them types who likes to transfer their phobias unto others.

Six jours - it's not about the space, it's about the stripe.
If you remove the stripe, the space that "make[s] cycling a relatively enjoyable experience rather than a harrowing adventure" is still there.

Maybe. I tend to think that little line makes a difference, but I can't base that upon anything concrete. Again to use SoCal as an example, it seems that drivers can't function without handholding via lines and instructions, myself included. I visited rural Arkansas a while back and was an active hazard in my car. Without perfectly painted lines everywhere, I had to actually think about what I was doing in my car. This is an unusual occurence for a SoCal driver. :)


Your comment, "Wow. That'll get you killed quick!" seems like you think faster traffic from behind is a significant threat. Do you?

Yes. Of the half dozen friends I have lost to car-bike interractions over the years, five were hit from behind.


Where do you live/ride?

See the above cross-post.

BTW, just a note: I am not anybody's enemy. We may have different ideas on the details of how to ride, but if you're on a bike I'm on your side. Not that I think anyone's been rude to me at A&S, but folks do seem to get their feathers ruffled around here from time to time. :)

but as yet no one has offered any way of reaching those who need the education the most... those "least competent" cyclists that are not likely to seek such education on their own, are not likely to go to a bike shop and otherwise are not part of any formalized cycling organization.

This is the most frustrating part of the whole thing to me. There are plenty of cyclists who are well-off enough to have the resources to find education on how to properly ride a bike in traffic. Yet, so many of these potentially-competent cyclists act just like the incompetents (ok, so they ride in bike lanes instead of on the sidewalk, whoop dee doo). If all of the potentially-competent cyclists actually rode in a competent manner, it would be a lot easier for these other cyclists to pick up on how it should be done.

amazing hyperbole, joejack.

what makes you say incompetant bicyclists use bike lanes? You don't HAVE any bike lanes where you live, correct?

Additionally, vehicular bicyclists can ride in bike lanes, dude. The precepts of Vehicular cycling include using bike lanes and on the shoulders of high speed roads. why persist in your dystopian, misleading vision quest?

Competant, vehicular cyclists can use and advocate for bike infrastructure, joe.

Head's method (and yours, apparantly) of dodging in and out of a perfectly acceptable bike lane in front of traffic because of traffic fear, THAT'S borderline incompetance, joe.

Oh, that's right, Joe, you claim you don't HAVE any bike lanes where you ride daily. so your argument about your bike lane use and the supossedly incompetant bicyclists using them is fantastical internet postulations....

If all of the potentially-competent cyclists actually rode in a competent manner, it would be a lot easier for these other cyclists to pick up on how it should be done.

IM grumpy old bastard O, the "Lance boom" has resulted in too many new cyclists for the old guard to educate. The result is entire clubs full of cyclists who don't know what they're doing, don't know that they don't know what they're doing, and so are unwittingly reinforcing each other's incompetence -- to the point that any "outsiders" who mention that they don't actually need to fall over quite so often are seen as enemies.

I don't know what to do about this, except to hope that Lance's retirement and Landis' antics will send the boomers back to the racquetball courts.

amazing hyperbole, joejack.

what makes you say incompetant bicyclistsz use bike lanes? You don't HAVE any bike lanes where you live, correct?

Additionally, vehicular bicyclists can ride in bike lanes, dude. Vehicular cycling includes using bike lanes and on the shoulders of high speed roads. why persist in your dystopian, misleading vision quest?

Competant, vehicular cyclists can use and advocate for bike infrastructure, joe.

Head's method (and yours, apparantly) of dodging in and out of a perfectly acceptable bike lane in front of traffic because of traffic fear, THAT'S borderline incompetance, joe.

Oh, that's right, Joe, you claim you don't HAVE any bike lanes where you ride daily. so your argument about your bike lane use and the supossedly incompetant bicyclists using them is fantastical internet postulations....

Bek, I've explained to you many times, and even once through PM, that I do have bike lanes where I live, just not on my normal commute to work, which is what I most often ride. Please give up on your attempts to make it sound like I'm arguing against something that I have no experience with.

I have never denied that a vehicular cyclist can use a bike lane or a shoulder. I do it plenty when the situation calls for it. I don't default to it though.

Now, would you deny that an incompetent cyclist can ride in a bike lane or shoulder?

why mischaracterize bicyclists that use bike lanes as incompetant? you do. plenty, sounds like. so does helemt head. i bet his occasional bike commute is 90 percent bike laned arterials and steady traffic.

dodging in and out of an acceptable bike lane, in the face of overtaking traffic, becuase of traffic fear, that's borderline incompetance, joe. what makes a bike lane safe in the presence of traffic but unsafe in the absence of traffic? the lack of vehicles?

and remember, joe, that i also move in and out of bike lanes....

<edit> Interesting to note that Helmet Head lives in the same neighborhood. I honestly can't understand anyone making a habit of riding centered in traffic lanes in urban Southern California. I imagine anyone who does takes a lot of flak both from motorists and fellow cyclists. Well, I do ride in bike lanes between intersections when it is safe and reasonable to do so. But it's the space that allows me to do that, not the stripe. If the stripe were not there, I would ride in the same.

Surely you go up and down the coast. A great way to test/experience a more assertive style is by taking the lane on coastal 101, from, say, La Costa Blvd down to Del Mar. Ride out left of the right tire mark, about where you would if you were on a motorcycle. Riding in that position keeps you out of the door zone, forces same direction faster traffic to change lanes to pass you instead of trying to squeeze into the right lane with you, improves your sight lines to/from traffic moving in and out of all those places on the right (west), and gives you more room to the right for error/escape margin. In some sections the lane widens so that you can safely and reasonably move aside to allow faster traffic to pass, but those sections are the exception, not the rule on this road.

A lot of cyclists complain about traffic and getting hooked on this stretch, but it's really quite nice and pleasant if you position yourself appropriately.

why mischaracterize bicyclists that use bike lanes as incompetant? you do. plenty, sounds like.

Huh? I asked you if an incompetent cyclist could use a bike lane, in response to you saying that a competent cyclist could use a bike lane (to which I agreed).


dodging in and out of an acceptable bike lane, in the face of overtaking traffic, becuase of traffic fear, that's borderline incompetance, joe. what makes a bike lane safe in the presence of traffic but unsafe in the absence of traffic? the lack of vehicles?

You've had this explained to you so many times it's getting ridiculous. There's traffic (which you can't always see all of) and there's faster same direction traffic which is easily monitored in a rear view mirror. Think about it.


and remember, joe, that i also move in and out of bike lanes....

I can hear the chest beating from my cube, 3000 miles away.

One more thing, did it sink in yet that I do have bike lanes in my area?

:roflmao:

chest beating? hardly.

:roflmao:

chest beating? hardly.

So are you going to respond to my post or dodge all the tough questions as usual?

i don't see any questions in your last couple of posts, joe. well, maybe one.


Huh?

certainly nothing TOUGH, dude.

Oh, oh, the "did it sink" yet question? no, not the way you proudly claim on this forum about the lack of bike lanes where you live. get your story straight, joe. like with that 'right hook' business. Is it once a week, or only twice? big contradictory statements to postulate on an internet forum.....

I'm starting to doubt your credibility as well. it seems like the anti-bike lane BF members have to make stuff up to try and validate their agenda.

Well, I do ride in bike lanes between intersections when it is safe and reasonable to do so. But it's the space that allows me to do that, not the stripe. If the stripe were not there, I would ride in the same.
I don't think we're too far apart in this opinion.


Surely you go up and down the coast. A great way to test/experience a more assertive style is by taking the lane on coastal 101, from, say, La Costa Blvd down to Del Mar. Ride out left of the right tire mark, about where you would if you were on a motorcycle. Riding in that position keeps you out of the door zone, forces same direction faster traffic to change lanes to pass you instead of trying to squeeze into the right lane with you, improves your sight lines to/from traffic moving in and out of all those places on the right (west), and gives you more room to the right for error/escape margin. In some sections the lane widens so that you can safely and reasonably move aside to allow faster traffic to pass, but those sections are the exception, not the rule on this road.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that exact stretch of road. I'm closer to the mountains than the coast these days, and do a lot more riding on mountain two-laners with bike lane than on PCH/101.

I bet I know the kind of road you're talking about though, and again, I don't think our approaches are radically different. On the narrow coast roads -- especially with lots of parked cars -- your approach makes a lot of sense. OTOH, I personally consider that kind of road to be higher risk than average regardless of how it's ridden, and it does bother me a bit that I have to impede traffic to ride it as safely as possible. I certainly agree that I have a RIGHT to ride those roads, but I choose not to when possible -- both because I don't like pushing my luck after a long and occasionally foolish riding career, and because I don't like being in the way of other people if I can help it.

Yes. Of the half dozen friends I have lost to car-bike interractions over the years, five were hit from behind.

I'm sorry to hear about your losses.

There are several types of hit from behind crashes, including:


Cyclist is riding along edge of road, and suddenly falls or swerves, perhaps to avoid a sudden hazard like an opening car door, in front of overtaking motorist who is coming from behind.
Cyclist is riding along edge of road while approaching an intersection or junction where he plans to go straight and is not noticed by a right-turner behind him who is paying attention to his left.
Cyclist is riding in bike lane or shoulder when there is no traffic, and the next motorist who comes along is inattentive, does not notice the cyclist off to the side, is distracted by something, and inadvertently drifts into the bike lane or shoulder.
Cyclist is riding in the middle of the lane, and has been for a long time, and motorist from behind comes along and hits him from behind.
Other ???

Do you know which types of crashes were involved in each of the losses of your friends? In particular, do you know any of which were of type (d) and definitely not a, b or c? I ask this because, so far as I know, crashes of type (d) are extremely rare.

what a diatribe.

I bet I know the kind of road you're talking about though, and again, I don't think our approaches are radically different. On the narrow coast roads -- especially with lots of parked cars -- your approach makes a lot of sense. OTOH, I personally consider that kind of road to be higher risk than average regardless of how it's ridden, and it does bother me a bit that I have to impede traffic to ride it as safely as possible. I certainly agree that I have a RIGHT to ride those roads, but I choose not to when possible -- both because I don't like pushing my luck after a long and occasionally foolish riding career, and because I don't like being in the way of other people if I can help it.
It may be true that one type of road is inherently of higher risk than another, but I believe the behavior of the cyclist determines the real risk much, much more than any minor differences in inherent road risk difference. That is, a safe experienced cyclist will only be slightly more at risk on the higher risk road (just as any driver is), but is still much, much safer than the unitiated cyclist riding on the supposedly much safer road.

You say it bothers you "a bit" to have to impede traffic, and that you don't like being in the way of other people if you can help it. It's very difficult to translate attitude in and out of written English (hearing your voice, and seeing your facial and body language would be very helpful), but it's possible what you're trying to convey is what I believe to be an attitude that can hinder one's ability to comfortably, safely and effectively ride a bicycle in traffic to a surprisingly significant degree. That attitude also seems to happen to correlate with "liking bike lanes".

I learned to drive in 1971 VW bus, and, so, I learned to be accustomed to impeding traffic and being in the way of other people from early on. I suspect that experience is why it doesn't seem to bother me as much as it does other people. But I know it's imperative to be okay with it in order to be truly comfortable riding a bike in traffic, because delaying others is an inherent part of it. It's really liberarting to realize it's okay, and, ironically, once you get past that, it becomes easier to figure out how to minimize being in the way.

In the first circumstance, the rider was in the bike lane on a straight, smooth, level road, and was struck behind by a driver who admitted to having been searching for her cell phone rather than focusing on the road.

The second was a broad curve on a wide mountain road. No bike lane, but a wide shoulder. The driver stated that the rider swerved into the road, but the cyclist's riding partners and the CHP disagreed. The driver admitted to having been distracted, either tuning the radio or inserting a cd into the player, I disremember which.

The third was, I suppose, a type D incident, in that the rider was rding in about the right wheel track of a one lane road and was struck by a drunk in an old pickup.

The fourth was intentional. Some lunatic took offense to the presence of the cyclist and mowed him down. The details never came out, but the cyclist wasn't actually on the road at all by the time he was struck. I can't imagine the terror of trying to escape from a nutcase intent on running you over.

The fifth was in a bike race in South America when another drunk in a pickup drove into the pack.

And the sixth was struck by a dump truck piloted by a coked-up moron. This took place in an intersection. The driver blew the red without even touching the brakes.

In retelling these incidents -- for the first time, I might add -- it strikes me that alcohol and/or drugs were involved in half of them. It also strikes me that -- this time, not for the first time -- how little the cyclists involved could have done to prevent it. I have long considered being struck from behind as the lottery of cyclists.

BTW, I have no doubt that crashes of type D are quite rare, as I almost never see people riding in the middle of the street, which makes it kind of hard to get hit there. :)

You say it bothers you "a bit" to have to impede traffic, and that you don't like being in the way of other people if you can help it. It's very difficult to translate attitude in and out of written English (hearing your voice, and seeing your facial and body language would be very helpful), but it's possible what you're trying to convey is what I believe to be an attitude that can hinder one's ability to comfortably, safely and effectively ride a bicycle in traffic to a surprisingly significant degree. That attitude also seems to happen to correlate with "liking bike lanes".

I learned to drive in 1971 VW bus, and, so, I learned to be accustomed to impeding traffic and being in the way of other people from early on. I suspect that experience is why it doesn't seem to bother me as much as it does other people. But I know it's imperative to be okay with it in order to be truly comfortable riding a bike in traffic, because delaying others is an inherent part of it. It's really liberarting to realize it's okay, and, ironically, once you get past that, it becomes easier to figure out how to minimize being in the way.
I think I see your point here, but I disagree with it.

FWIW, when I say that it bothers me a bit, I simply mean that I don't like to inconvenience people, just as I don't like to be inconvenienced. It's the difference between having your check filled out but for the amount, and waiting untill the total is wrung up before taking the checkbook out of the pocket.
I prefer to disrupt other people's lives as little as possible.

Now, if disrupting people's lives makes me materially safer, then they can deal with it. When I find myself on a road where being in the way might save my life, I choose to be in the way. But then, I can also choose not to take that road, and usually do. This occasionally offends the militant "You have just as much right as they do!" crowd, (not that I'm including anyone in particular, here) but c'est la vie.

i don't see any questions in your last couple of posts, joe. well, maybe one.

certainly nothing TOUGH, dude.

Oh, oh, the "did it sink" yet question? no, not the way you proudly claim on this forum about the lack of bike lanes where you live. get your story straight, joe. like with that 'right hook' business. Is it once a week, or only twice? big contradictory statements to postulate on an internet forum.....

I'm starting to doubt your credibility as well. it seems like the anti-bike lane BF members have to make stuff up to try and validate their agenda.

I asked you two questions, one about incompetent cyclists in bike lanes and one about a point sinking in. You crack me up by stating that I have made things up to support an agenda though. You obviously have an agenda to try and discredit me and thus go around twisting words and making things up. Get a life.

you discredit yourself, joe. i'm not the one doing it.

do bicyclists need competency tests before riding bikes? is that what all this jacking around is all about? getting bicyclists to test competent?

what a pipe dream. probably discriminatory. seems to be a desire to limit bicycling for the benefit of drivers.... :rolleyes:

For reference, here are the list of from-behind crash types again:

Cyclist is riding along edge of road, and suddenly falls or swerves, perhaps to avoid a sudden hazard like an opening car door, in front of overtaking motorist who is coming from behind.
Cyclist is riding along edge of road while approaching an intersection or junction where he plans to go straight and is not noticed by a right-turner behind him who is paying attention to his left.
Cyclist is riding in bike lane or shoulder when there is no traffic, and the next motorist who comes along is inattentive, does not notice the cyclist off to the side, is distracted by something, and inadvertently drifts into the bike lane or shoulder.
Cyclist is riding in the middle of the lane, and has been for a long time, and motorist from behind comes along and hits him from behind. (EDIT: By "middle of the lane" I mean in the lane such that the driver has to notice and adjust for the cyclist in order to avoid hitting him).
Other

In the first circumstance, the rider was in the bike lane on a straight, smooth, level road, and was struck behind by a driver who admitted to having been searching for her cell phone rather than focusing on the road. C


The second was a broad curve on a wide mountain road. No bike lane, but a wide shoulder. The driver stated that the rider swerved into the road, but the cyclist's riding partners and the CHP disagreed. The driver admitted to having been distracted, either tuning the radio or inserting a cd into the player, I disremember which. A or C, but not D, right?


The third was, I suppose, a type D incident, in that the rider was rding in about the right wheel track of a one lane road and was struck by a drunk in an old pickup. Yes, that is a D, but I should have differentiated D/sober and D/drunk, since when the rare D types do occur, it does seem to involve a drunk driver.


The fourth was intentional. Some lunatic took offense to the presence of the cyclist and mowed him down. The details never came out, but the cyclist wasn't actually on the road at all by the time he was struck. I can't imagine the terror of trying to escape from a nutcase intent on running you over. Clearly E (Other)


The fifth was in a bike race in South America when another drunk in a pickup drove into the pack. E


And the sixth was struck by a dump truck piloted by a coked-up moron. This took place in an intersection. The driver blew the red without even touching the brakes. And hit a same-direction cyclist from behind? Was the cyclist running the red too? Or was this not actually a from-behind crash?


In retelling these incidents -- for the first time, I might add -- it strikes me that alcohol and/or drugs were involved in half of them. It also strikes me that -- this time, not for the first time -- how little the cyclists involved could have done to prevent it. I have long considered being struck from behind as the lottery of cyclists.

BTW, I have no doubt that crashes of type D are quite rare, as I almost never see people riding in the middle of the street, which makes it kind of hard to get hit there. :) On any road that is too narrow for the cyclist to be passed without the motorist noticing and adjusting for the cyclist the cyclist is vulnerable to a type D. These types of roads are found all over the country, in urban, suburban and rural areas, including most of the shoulderless highways with 11' lanes in eastern SD county (Ramona to Julian anyone?). It is often impossible to get somewhere without riding on roads like this, and cyclists use them all the time. There are probably thousands of cyclists riding on roads like that right this second, yet Type D remains extremely rare. This is particularly extraordinary considering the number of drunk/drugged drivers out there, but I beleve this is because the last thing to go is the driver's ability to notice what's directly in front of him in his path. After all, the vast majority of drunk drivers do manage to get to their destination without incident (like the bastard who drifted into and killed the woman in the Solana Beach bike lane a couple of months ago; he drove home to Escondido after that); if they were unable to notice hazards in their path up ahead, including cyclists vulnerable to Type D crashes, to some reasonable degree, they could not make it home. I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect Type C is significantly more likely.

Apologies, Six jours, this is a typical helmethead tactic, to use tragedies as evidence for his wacky riding theories.He's got little to no emotional intelligence, and less tact.

I think I see your point here, but I disagree with it.

FWIW, when I say that it bothers me a bit, I simply mean that I don't like to inconvenience people, just as I don't like to be inconvenienced. It's the difference between having your check filled out but for the amount, and waiting untill the total is wrung up before taking the checkbook out of the pocket.
I prefer to disrupt other people's lives as little as possible.

Now, if disrupting people's lives makes me materially safer, then they can deal with it. When I find myself on a road where being in the way might save my life, I choose to be in the way. But then, I can also choose not to take that road, and usually do. This occasionally offends the militant "You have just as much right as they do!" crowd, (not that I'm including anyone in particular, here) but c'est la vie. Ugh. This is the kind of stuff that gets me in trouble, and causes people to dislike me. Please don't take offense and do take the following with a grain of salt. It's only the opinion of some guy on the internet, and if it makes no sense to you, by all means ignore it! Anyway, here it goes...

With all due respect, whether you realize it or not, your language evokes a strong aversion to asserting your rights while cycling in traffic. In real-time, it's often impossible to know whether doing this or that makes you "materially safer". I believe in doing what's safest, period, regardless of how it may or may not affect others. Having to rise to the level of "might save my life" is putting that hurdle way up there. I'm not offended by it - you gotta do what you gotta do. I'm just saying I think I know exactly what you're talking about, because I've been there, and I'm here to tell you, freedom from all that self-imposed stress is way better. When you drop the "obligation to not disrupt" load from your back, it's like that first day on your brand new 3-lbs.-lighter-than-the-old-one bike. Dropping that obligation load frees you to ride more visibly and predicatably, and, ironically, causes motorists to overlook you much less often, and to treat you much better.

When you ride in a deferential fashion, they are prone to treat you accordingly.
What you ride in an assertive fashion (but not rude!), they are prone to treat you accordingly too.

Having said all that, I am not at all advocating riding out in the middle of the lane all the time! Far from it! When it is safe and reasonable to ride off to the side... by all mean! But the key difference is recognizing when it is not safe and reasonable to do it, and to not do it at those times, and not feel burdened to do it just because it will delay others. In particular, it means paying attention to all the reasons that make it unsafe or unreasonable to ride "as far right as practicable", and move left when any apply. In fact, I favor actually keeping left unless faster same direction traffic is present or I notice in my mirror it is approaching, in which case I consider moving right, and do so IF it is safe and reasonable to do so. And again, I'm telling you, I get MUCH better treatment from motorists when I ride like this. It's not even close.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I won't. Perhaps Joe could add to this.

There are probably thousands of cyclists riding on roads like that right this second, yet Type D remains extremely rare.
That'd be an interesting statistic, but I'd need to see the numbers, the controls, and the methodology. Personal enecdote is almost always colored by perception, mine included.

Apologies, Six jours, this is a typical helmethead tactic, to use tragedies as evidence for his wacky riding theories.He's got little to no emotional intelligence, and less tact.

I debated with myself whether to mention my personal experiences/losses here, knowing they'd be discussed dispassionately. They all happened a long time ago, though, and the pain has faded into the sad/nostalgic type. Also, I believe the victims, along with their friends and families, would approve of using their tragedies to further our own safety in this game.

That'd be an interesting statistic, but I'd need to see the numbers, the controls, and the methodology. Personal enecdote is almost always colored by perception, mine included. Indeed, despite not seeing the numbers, controls and the methodology, you never-the-less asserted: "I have no doubt that crashes of type D are quite rare, as I almost never see people riding in the middle of the street, which makes it kind of hard to get hit there."

But my point is made on common sense:

There are thousands and thousands of miles of urban, suburban and rural roads with 11-12' lanes in which it is virtually impossible to pass a cyclist safely without noticing him and adjusting for him. Surely you do not doubt this?
These roads are regularly used by cyclists. Sure, it would be nice to get a hard number, but it would be very difficult to do. Never-the-less, do you doubt this to be true?
Type D crashes are very rare. From-behind crashes are relatively rare to begin with, and all the crash data supports this. If you filter out the drifts and right hooks and inadvertent drifts from that, there isn't much left.

With all due respect, whether you realize it or not, your language evokes a strong aversion to asserting your rights while cycling in traffic. In real-time, it's often impossible to know whether doing this or that makes you "materially safer". I believe in doing what's safest, period, regardless of how it may or may not affect others. Having to rise to the level of "might save my life" is putting that hurdle way up there. I'm not offended by it - you gotta do what you gotta do. I'm just saying I think I know exactly what you're talking about, because I've been there, and I'm here to tell you, freedom from all that self-imposed stress is way better. When you drop the "obligation to not disrupt" load from your back, it's like that first day on your brand new 3-lbs.-lighter-than-the-old-one bike. Dropping that obligation load frees you to ride more visibly and predicatably, and, ironically, causes motorists to overlook you much less often, and to treat you much better.
Well, I think I see where you're coming from, but I also think that it doesn't quite apply here. Or perhaps we're merely zooming by each other's points. Simply put, I stay out of the way when I can, and only interfere with other traffic when I feel it neccesary and appropriate. We may only disagree on the point of what constitutes "necessary and appropriate". My concern is that there are folks who are so militant about exercising their rights that they make an obnoxious point out of it at every opportunity. "I spend all my time in the middle of the road because it might make me safer" is the ideological flipside of "I never get in the way of traffic because I don't want to upset anybody". I don't think either of us is saying any of those things -- but "freedom from all that self-imposed stress is way better" strikes me as analogous to "Responding to every disagreement with '**** YOU!!!' is SO liberating!". I think a little self-imposed stress about interfering with other peoples' lives is appropriate.


When you ride in a deferential fashion, they are prone to treat you accordingly.
What you ride in an assertive fashion (but not rude!), they are prone to treat you accordingly too.
Ah, but the line between "assertive" and "rude" can be vanishing thin, and it's been my customer service experience that most rude people think they're just being assertive -- even when they're yelling **** YOU!!! :)


Having said all that, I am not at all advocating riding out in the middle of the lane all the time! Far from it! When it is safe and reasonable to ride off to the side... by all mean! But the key difference is recognizing when it is not safe and reasonable to do it, and to not do it at those times, and not feel burdened to do it just because it will delay others. In particular, it means paying attention to all the reasons that make it unsafe or unreasonable to ride "as far right as practicable", and move left when any apply. In fact, I favor actually keeping left unless faster same direction traffic is present or I notice in my mirror it is approaching, in which case I consider moving right, and do so IF it is safe and reasonable to do so. And again, I'm telling you, I get MUCH better treatment from motorists when I ride like this. It's not even close.
Our disagreement is so slight, when it comes right down to it. You and I ride almost exactly the same. If anything, I'd say that when they're really isn't any traffic around, I ride wherever in the lane I feel like! The essential difficulty, then, is teaching folks when and where to ride in any given scenario, and AFAIK, the only way to that is to show them. This requires a much higher "old guard to new blood" ratio than we have now, and thus becomes an unsolveable dillema.

And where bike lanes fall in it I have no idea.

But my point is made on common sense:
There are thousands and thousands of miles of urban, suburban and rural roads with 11-12' lanes in which it is virtually impossible to pass a cyclist safely without noticing him and adjusting for him. Surely you do not doubt this?
These roads are regularly used by cyclists. Sure, it would be nice to get a hard number, but it would be very difficult to do. Never-the-less, do you doubt this to be true?
Type D crashes are very rare. From-behind crashes are relatively rare to begin with, and all the crash data supports this. If you filter out the drifts and right hooks and inadvertent drifts from that, there isn't much left.

Ah, but these are two different scenarios. I do not doubt for a moment that many cyclists travel many miles on these types of roads. I have done so myself and will doubtless do so again. I rarely, however, see cyclists travelling in the middle of these roads, which is an important part of "D" incidents as you define them. When I or any of the cyclists I know travel these roads, we travel them "as far to the right as practicable". And I believe it is relatively common for riders to get their tickets punched on these roads. Would riding in the middle of them as opposed to the right of them make any appreciable difference? Well, I personally doubt it, but in the absence of hard numbers we have to depend upon personal anecdotes. Which are incredibly unreliable. :)

Well, I think I see where you're coming from, but I also think that it doesn't quite apply here. Or perhaps we're merely zooming by each other's points. Simply put, I stay out of the way when I can, and only interfere with other traffic when I feel it neccesary and appropriate. We may only disagree on the point of what constitutes "necessary and appropriate". My concern is that there are folks who are so militant about exercising their rights that they make an obnoxious point out of it at every opportunity. "I spend all my time in the middle of the road because it might make me safer" is the ideological flipside of "I never get in the way of traffic because I don't want to upset anybody". I don't think either of us is saying any of those things -- but "freedom from all that self-imposed stress is way better" strikes me as analogous to "Responding to every disagreement with '**** YOU!!!' is SO liberating!". I think a little self-imposed stress about interfering with other peoples' lives is appropriate.


Ah, but the line between "assertive" and "rude" can be vanishing thin, and it's been my customer service experience that most rude people think they're just being assertive -- even when they're yelling **** YOU!!! :)


Our disagreement is so slight, when it comes right down to it. You and I ride almost exactly the same. If anything, I'd say that when they're really isn't any traffic around, I ride wherever in the lane I feel like! The essential difficulty, then, is teaching folks when and where to ride in any given scenario, and AFAIK, the only way to that is to show them. This requires a much higher "old guard to new blood" ratio than we have now, and thus becomes an unsolveable dillema.

And where bike lanes fall in it I have no idea.
First, it's very difficult to judge how others ride from reading their words on the internet. So, certainly, it's possible that we ride almost exactly the same. But I doubt it, and I'll tell you why, and it has nothing to do with what you've written, it's just pure probabilities: I see very, very few cyclists, including experienced racers and commuters, who ride the way I do. So if you ride almost exactly the same as me, you are one rare bird, guaranteed.

Anyway, be safe out there, and let 'em know who's boss!

Fair enough. Thanks for the pleasant chat!

Helmie, maybe now would be a good time to describe that wiggle wag you do, for visibility? I'm sure some of us could use a refresher (like me, who can't remember the real name for it)...

Helmie, maybe now would be a good time to describe that wiggle wag you do, for visibility? I'm sure some of us could use a refresher (like me, who can't remember the real name for it)...

It comes down to this. Ride more left or centerish when and where you can without impeding the flow of traffic... as traffic approaches, move right, into a BL or along the side of the road.

That really is the basis for the whole thing. HH may go into some long timing thing about how long it takes to do this or that... but really the basic idea is ride as far left as you can, but watch for and give way to faster same direction traffic, unless there is some strong reason to remain leftish.

Default center, scoot right.

Default center, scoot right.
OK got it.

Would you do this repeatedly for a string of cars?

I mean, "at least hint", "seem to indicate" and "lead me to speculate" are not very definitive about anything.

FWIW I would use the same terminology about the studies that support VC (we are still waiting for a decent study from both ends of the debate.) If I have the time I will try and find the link of CDC (or was NIH) review of bike safety studies. Basically the report gave the pro-bike lane studies more credence then the pro-VC studies but they added that there is strong evidence that riding with traffic also increases safety.

OK got it.

Would you do this repeatedly for a string of cars?

Do you mean:

a. Would you move left into between each and every vehicle in a pack of cars?

or

b. Would you move left in between packs of cars that are far enough apart that you safely move left, assert your position in the lane, then move right as they finally approach?

If (a), no. That would be impossible and incredibly annoying for both the cyclist and the faster traffic. If (b) then yes.

Ah, but these are two different scenarios. I do not doubt for a moment that many cyclists travel many miles on these types of roads. I have done so myself and will doubtless do so again. I rarely, however, see cyclists travelling in the middle of these roads, which is an important part of "D" incidents as you define them. When I or any of the cyclists I know travel these roads, we travel them "as far to the right as practicable". And I believe it is relatively common for riders to get their tickets punched on these roads. Would riding in the middle of them as opposed to the right of them make any appreciable difference? Well, I personally doubt it, but in the absence of hard numbers we have to depend upon personal anecdotes. Which are incredibly unreliable. :)

How is riding in the middle of these roads an important point? Where motorists commonly drive in an 11 foot lane and where cyclists commonly ride (at least a foot or so from the edge) would have the motorist at least clipping the side of the cyclist as they drove past if the motorist did not adjust at all. If the motorist adjusted, they obviously saw the cyclist. If there was oncoming traffic and the motorist couldn't fit by (such as would be the case for either the cyclist in the middle of the lane or on the outside edge of the lane) they would need to stop and wait for a good time to pass. Do you agree?

Now cyclists getting clipped often (if it were true which I'm not really sure but I don't think it's UNcommon) on these roads would not surprise me at all due to the fact that a far right position encourages motorists to try and pass even when it is not safe, such as around blind corners or over hills. When opposite direction traffic appears, they take the easy way out and avoid the head-on collision by side swiping the cyclist. This is one more reason to ride centerish.