Google sponsored links
...Because, after all, the fear of being mowed down from behind in broad daylight whilst riding properly is so "irrational" only a lunatic would have such fear.
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/225988.html
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Read some of those comments. Scary that there are people behind the wheel that think like that.
The details of the article don't make it clear to me exactly what happened. They may have been hit from behind, but the article really doesn't say. Perhaps if there's followup information after the police report is filed someone could post it here.
Two things: It's tragic. But since there are so few details in the article it isn't an indication of anything much with respect to cycling safety.
The details of the article don't make it clear to me exactly what happened. They may have been hit from behind, but the article really doesn't say. Perhaps if there's followup information after the police report is filed someone could post it here.
Two things: It's tragic. But since there are so few details in the article it isn't an indication of anything much with respect to cycling safety.
"According to Grandview police, the driver of the pickup truck, a 48-year-old Grandview resident, also was northbound and struck the victims from behind. Police have been talking with the driver to try to determine what caused the accident.
Police reports indicate the victims were properly in the right lane of the roadway and there is no indication, according to Grandview police, that the driver of the truck was under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the accident occurred. "
http://www.lsjournal.com/articles/2007/08/10/news/01deaths.txt
Read some of those comments. Scary that there are people behind the wheel that think like that.
It's simple... the car ads and the design of the roads lead folks to think that they own the roads.
It's time for Slow Down America campaigns... it's long past time for law enforcement to enforce speed laws. It's time for motorists to Take a Second Look. Quit depending on a glance to ensure the road or way is clear.
Don't just look once, Take a Second Look.
Slow Down, Drive Friendly, and Share the Road.
The life you save could be your own.
Sure perhaps the cyclists could have done something to make themselves more visible... but there are many more motorists than cyclists, and many more motorists deaths than cyclist deaths... motorists are their own worst enemy.
Slow Down, Drive Friendly, and Share the Road.
Regarding cyclist inferiority syndrome... remember Forester doesn't even recommend using a mirror.
The article says "right side of the right lane." Here's a link to a Google map image of the area. Looks like either a shoulder or a very wide outside lane. Doesn't seem like these cyclists were anywhere near the normal path of a motor vehicle.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=raytown+road,+kansas+city,+missouri&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.112526,91.757813&ie=UTF8&ll=38.921619,-94.476113&spn=0.00341,0.0056&t=h&z=18&om=1
RIP, Larry, RIP, Sierra.
tragic. I agree with Gene, it is time for america to step up responsible driving campaigns.
jowjack, I have no idea what you infer by your comment, but your 'analysis' doesn't jive much with your recommendations on other threads where, in wide outside lanes, bicyclists have no overarching need to be claiming the lane, instead following the rules of the road and riding right.
Rest in peace, Larry and Sierra. :(
jowjack, your 'analysis' doesn't jive much with your recommendations on other threads where, in wide outside lanes, bicyclists have no overarching need to be claiming the lane, instead following the rules of the road and riding right.
And you are right, in general cyclists can right to the ride in between intersections without having much to worry about. Just like you tout staying on the shoulder on rural highways. However, I don't believe I've ever posted that staying to the far right in a WOL is something I recommend. The problem is with inattentive motorists and their tendency to drift coupled with their tendency to not be paying attention to what's not directly in front of them. However, in this forum, making suggestions for how cyclists might avoid this fate will get you mocked endlessly by members such as yourself.
The guy who hit these cyclists had no malicious intent, just like other motorists who have done the same thing have had no ill will towards cyclists. That's why all the legislation in the world won't prevent this from happening again. That's why advocating ways of avoiding this fate is important in some small respect (given it's rarity).
sorry to bring this up in a thread about cyclist death threads, but now you suggest bicyclists ride in the middle of wide lanes and do the HH powerweave to and fro in front of all oncoming traffic, instead of holding a relatively consistent lane position, only moving left when necessary to avoid upcoming obstructions and intersection conflicts?
joe....you've invested into HH's 'inadverdant drift' sophistry hook, line and sinker.
Rest in peace, Larry, Rest in peace, Sierra. I hope your passings were relatively painless. :( sorry to be arguing in a moment more appropriate for mourning.
A tragedy.
sorry to bring this up in a thread about cyclist death threads, but now you suggest bicyclists ride in the middle of wide lanes and do the HH powerweave to and fro in front of all oncoming traffic, instead of holding a relatively consistent lane position, only moving left when necessary to avoid upcoming obstructions and intersection conflicts?
joe....you've invested into HH's 'inadverdant drift' sophistry hook, line and sinker.
What else do you propose that would make a significant difference in the chances that any single cyclist will get inadvertently drifted into? I'll wait as long as you'd like to take for an answer.
daytime visible blinkies, high vis clothing. bike lanes are one part of the solution, banning hand held electronics while driving is another.
And you are right, in general cyclists can right to the ride in between intersections without having much to worry about. Just like you tout staying on the shoulder on rural highways. However, I don't believe I've ever posted that staying to the far right in a WOL is something I recommend. The problem is with inattentive motorists and their tendency to drift coupled with their tendency to not be paying attention to what's not directly in front of them. However, in this forum, making suggestions for how cyclists might avoid this fate will get you mocked endlessly by members such as yourself.
The guy who hit these cyclists had no malicious intent, just like other motorists who have done the same thing have had no ill will towards cyclists. That's why all the legislation in the world won't prevent this from happening again. That's why advocating ways of avoiding this fate is important in some small respect (given it's rarity).
Part of the problem is not getting the whole picture because of driving too fast for the conditions. As motorists drive faster, a "tunnel vision" effect takes place, which requires scanning the roadway from side to side. Race car drivers do this and so do more experienced (rare) motorists, but the average joe tends to focus on the dashed line or the vehicle in front... or even the line on the side, which is one reason why that inattention blindness occurs. The drifting occurs due to focusing on something like the markers or side of the road. The sad fact is that many motorists drive only just barely well enough to avoid daily near misses... and as far as the general public is concerned, that is good enough.
However good enough may not really be good enough, as illustrated by the number of motorist deaths that occur each year. But somehow those deaths are considered "acceptable" by the general public.
Better driver education could help... but it is not considered politically acceptable. Better roads could help, but there is not enough funding for infrastructure (as evidenced by bridge failures). The alternative at this point seems to be passive restraint systems for drivers and passengers... and these do save lives... provided one is inside the car. And since the cost is picked up directly by the vehicle user... this absolves the government from providing better general solutions, just mandates and guidlines.
Eventually this "passive restraint approach" will lead to autonomous drive vehicles... maybe not in my lifetime, but the studies are going on now, and some time in the not too distant future the "self parking" technology we see today will lead to the self driving cars of the future.
Cars will not go away... some technology will be harnessed to allow vehicles of some sort to be used in spite of the decline of availablity of fossil fuel. Cars will become "smarter." That trend is well on the way.
daytime visible blinkies, high vis clothing. bike lanes are one part of the solution, banning hand held electronics while driving is another.
All these things are great, but still depend on fallible humans. None of the above is going to help if a motorist falls asleep at the wheel or choses to drink and drive.
Looks like either a shoulder or a very wide outside lane. Doesn't seem like these cyclists were anywhere near the normal path of a motor vehicle.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=raytown+road,+kansas+city,+missouri&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.112526,91.757813&ie=UTF8&ll=38.921619,-94.476113&spn=0.00341,0.0056&t=h&z=18&om=1
We are sorry, but we don't have imagery at that zoom level for this region.
Try zooming out for a broader look, or modify some other facts to fit your theories.
We are sorry, but we don't have imagery at that zoom level for this region.
Try zooming out for a broader look, or modify some other facts to fit your theories.
"He said the wide lanes of the road make it safe for riders, as traffic should have plenty of room to drive around the bicyclists."
(From your link:http://www.lsjournal.com/articles/2007/08/10/news/01deaths.txt)
daytime visible blinkies, high vis clothing. bike lanes are one part of the solution, banning hand held electronics while driving is another.
What about radios? Cheeseburgers? Cranky kids? Billboards?
joe, you are making me sick.
RIP, Larry and Sierra.
"He said the wide lanes of the road make it safe for riders, as traffic should have plenty of room to drive around the bicyclists."
What does that have to do with the "normal path of a motor vehicle"? They were, based on the police reports, in the right-hand lane. Why are you assuming vehicles don't drive there? Can you see unswept debris in the right-hand lane in the google imagery?
This is all a re-tread of an old used-up argument anyways, because this study:
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_type10.pdf
Which I must have referenced a hundred times now, which found hit-from-behinds are more common downtown, where (gasp) roads are narrower.
Now, I realise this study is based on my town, not yours. But can you provide me with any other study dealing with motorist overtaking accidents that shows anything at all you've suggested.
What does that have to do with the "normal path of a motor vehicle"? They were, based on the police reports, in the right-hand lane. Why are you assuming vehicles don't drive there? Can you see unswept debris in the right-hand lane in the google imagery?
Would you drive out there? Look at the other vehicles using the road. Are they driving that close to the edge of the road? What would cause this guy to decide to drive along the outside edge of the road, other than not paying attention to where he's going and drifting out there? If the road was as popular with cyclists as the article states, he probably knew that cyclists used that portion of the roadway so he'd very likely be avoiding it.
Not that it should have to be said, but...I AM NOT BLAMING THE CYCLISTS. This tragic collision was clearly the motorist's fault.
This is all a re-tread of an old used-up argument anyways, because this study:
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_type10.pdf
Which I must have referenced a hundred times now, which found hit-from-behinds are more common downtown, where (gasp) roads are narrower.
Now, I realise this study is based on my town, not yours. But can you provide me with any other study dealing with motorist overtaking accidents that shows anything at all you've suggested.
Well, the study says this: Both parties were traveling the same direction. The motorist either brushed by or rear-ended the cyclist.
Do you have the breakdown for the actual rear ending accidents? If you remove the brush-bys, where do the hit-from-behind's now stand?
The point is that rear end collissions like this DO happen and the cyclist has no way of protecting himself/herself. There was that case in Wisconsin not to long ago when a drunk rear ended three cyclists and pushed them off a bridge. They had no chance.
MY point is that it is not irrational to fear riding on high speed, well travelled roads, or to take safer alternatives when available.
The point is that rear end collissions like this DO happen and the cyclist has no way of protecting himself/herself. There was that case in Wisconsin not to long ago when a drunk rear ended three cyclists and pushed them off a bridge. They had no chance.
I take issue with stating that there is no way cyclists can protect themselves. I think a cyclist can and should make the effort to make himself as noticeable to traffic approaching from behind as possible. I think driver distraction will be much less likely to occur when a motorist realizes that there are cyclists up ahead in the roadway.
The bridge incident is somewhat irrelevant in that the cyclists were hit on the sidewalk, basically taking the "rational" approach to crossing the bridge.
MY point is that it is not irrational to fear riding on high speed, well travelled roads, or to take safer alternatives when available.
Who said that this was a high speed, well travelled road? From the sound of it, cyclists love this road. No one from the Bikeforums A&S forum is out there forcing these cyclists to use this road. Those cyclists obviously feel that this road is perfectly safe to cycle on. And I agree, but I would also ride it slightly differently than most would.
Would you drive out there? Look at the other vehicles using the road. Are they driving that close to the edge of the road? What would cause this guy to decide to drive along the outside edge of the road, other than not paying attention to where he's going and drifting out there? If the road was as popular with cyclists as the article states, he probably knew that cyclists used that portion of the roadway so he'd very likely be avoiding it.
Again, the google imagery doesn't even indicate where the edge of the road is. It could be a wide smooth shoulder, it could be gravel shoulder or broken glass.
And locally here, drivers use the right side of the wide right lane often, for instance with whenever the road curves right, even slightly, or there is an upcoming right turn.
And how is the fact that he "he probably knew that cyclists used that portion of the roadway so he'd very likely be avoiding it" reconcilable with the outcome here?
Not that it should have to be said, but...I AM NOT BLAMING THE CYCLISTS. This tragic collision was clearly the motorist's fault.
Noted. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm am suggesting that your so-called corrective measures of riding in the middle of the road, (and illegally so in most places) is not going to help.
Well, the study says this: Both parties were traveling the same direction. The motorist either brushed by or rear-ended the cyclist.
Do you have the breakdown for the actual rear ending accidents? If you remove the brush-bys, where do the hit-from-behind's now stand?
So in answer to my question then, NO, you have no other studies, nothing at all.
The Toronto study did not distinguish whether the cyclist was struck by the front, side panel, or rear-view mirror of the overtaking motor vehicle. I think that the study designers accurately decided that there was not enough information to pursue for this irrelevant line of inquiry.
Joe, here's the real deal. I more or less ride in the way *you* advocate, seriously. I am almost always on the travelled portion of the road unless there is overtaking traffic. I do this mostly for speed benefits, but I think that it does SOMETIMES help get overtaking driver's attention.
It's also nearly gotten me hit a few times in events I have mentioned in other threads
But it remains just an opinion that I have, and is not based on any fact or study. So I keep this types of theories to myself and don't try to present them as possible solutions to fatal collisions that I know almost nothing about.
The point is that rear end collissions like this DO happen and the cyclist has no way of protecting himself/herself. There was that case in Wisconsin not to long ago when a drunk rear ended three cyclists and pushed them off a bridge. They had no chance.
MY point is that it is not irrational to fear riding on high speed, well travelled roads, or to take safer alternatives when available.
The irrational label fits better when the fear leads to taking greater risks of collision (e.g. riding against traffic) or not cycling at all when the danger is very low and cycling is considered desirable.
For instance, if I avoided driving over bridges because I was afraid they would collapse, and I insisted on only taking ferrys, people would think me irrational. But bridges do collapse. It's all about relative risk versus reward.
Pleasant low-traffic routes can be very rewarding, but so can getting to work faster. To each his own.
The irrational label fits better when the fear leads to taking greater risks of collision (e.g. riding against traffic) or not cycling at all when the danger is very low and cycling is considered desirable.
For instance, if I avoided driving over bridges because I was afraid they would collapse, and I insisted on only taking ferrys, people would think me irrational. But bridges do collapse. It's all about relative risk versus reward.
Pleasant low-traffic routes can be very rewarding, but so can getting to work faster. To each his own.
True; and i am not advocating riding against traffic or note riding at all. I do however, use and appreciate MUPS for cummuting to avoid such streets
the focus is on "driver inattention" as the possible cause of the accident.
They've come up with all kinds of technical solutions to things that have played a part in car accidents. Things like anti-lock brakes and air bags. It's time to start focusing on the problems caused by the software between the steering wheel and the seat.
Here in Santa Barbara you can regularly see on some streets green and yellow signs people have put up in their yards urging motorists to Slow Down Santa Barbara. Sometimes these signs are even hand-made. One nearby family has a little ANSI lime plastic man with an orange flag and a sign that says "Slow Children at Play" that they put out on the street on the weekends.
Speed and inattention are a real issue that cannot be solved with powerweaving and other silly tricks. The source of the problem lies with the drivers and it is there that the solutions can be made. Anything less is just coping mechanism.
They've come up with all kinds of technical solutions to things that have played a part in car accidents. Things like anti-lock brakes and air bags. It's time to start focusing on the problems caused by the software between the steering wheel and the seat.
Here in Santa Barbara you can regularly see on some streets green and yellow signs people have put up in their yards urging motorists to Slow Down Santa Barbara. Sometimes these signs are even hand-made. One nearby family has a little ANSI lime plastic man with an orange flag and a sign that says "Slow Children at Play" that they put out on the street on the weekends.
Speed and inattention are a real issue that cannot be solved with powerweaving and other silly tricks. The source of the problem lies with the drivers and it is there that the solutions can be made. Anything less is just coping mechanism.
Agreed.
My steet is classified as a collector street, and it gets its share of traffic. There have been some speeding problems and some cut-through traffic, which prompted the neighbors to petition for speed hump installation, which we paid for. The speeds came down a substantially, but there is still some speeding. My wife has been concerned about our 4-year-old being near the road.
A new family recently moved into a rented house a two doors down from ours; the ~10-13 yo kids are home schooled and are constantly in front of the house with their friends. They set up a net and play basketball in the street every day, and don't leave the roadway until drivers slow down and approach close to them or even stop. My wife and few of our neighbors, the ones who petitioned for the speed humps, have complained about them being in the street. But these kids playing very visibly in the roadway have provided the most effective traffic calming I have ever seen. I believe they improve safety for pedestrians in front of my house than anything the city has ever done. They habituate drivers to expecting people in the roadway. But their method - visible and assertive use of the roadway - doesn't fit my neighborhoods' notion of appropriate behavior.
Again, the google imagery doesn't even indicate where the edge of the road is. It could be a wide smooth shoulder, it could be gravel shoulder or broken glass.
The cyclists were said to be riding at the right edge of the right lane, a lane which has been confirmed to be very wide which supports what is shown in the Google maps image. Not 100% certain, but pretty close.
And locally here, drivers use the right side of the wide right lane often, for instance with whenever the road curves right, even slightly, or there is an upcoming right turn.
And how is the fact that he "he probably knew that cyclists used that portion of the roadway so he'd very likely be avoiding it" reconcilable with the outcome here?
The cause of the accident was blamed on innattention, not rounding a corner to close to the edge of the road or making a right hand turn. It would be pretty rare to find someone going straight down a road with such a wide lane near the outer edge of the lane.
I realize I'm making some small assumptions here but you have to admit that they are based on common driving practice, not on a 0.01% chance that this driver was acting way out of the ordinary.
Noted. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm am suggesting that your so-called corrective measures of riding in the middle of the road, (and illegally so in most places) is not going to help.
Illegally? Hardly. The far right rule is applicable to slow moving vehicles only. If there is no faster traffic, you are just a vehicle and can ride as far left as you please. Moving aside when faster traffic approaches (with some attempt to verify that they have noticed you first) is part of defaulting to a centerish position and is consistent with the vehicle code. Remember, there's no bike lane on this road so even if the state had a mandatory bike lane law, it would not be in effect.
So in answer to my question then, NO, you have no other studies, nothing at all.
The Toronto study did not distinguish whether the cyclist was struck by the front, side panel, or rear-view mirror of the overtaking motor vehicle. I think that the study designers accurately decided that there was not enough information to pursue for this irrelevant line of inquiry.
Do you not agree that being brushed by traffic that has chosen to not give you enough space (for whatever reason) is a lot different than being hit from behind by traffic that has not seen you at all? The only study that I have is knowing that many roads that cyclists ride are so narrow that unless every single vehicle approaches notices the cyclist, the cyclist would be hit. Cyclists ride these roads all the time without incident (barring being clipped by close passes when riding too close to the edge of the road). If drivers were so inattentive that they are not noticing things right in front of them on a regular basis, there'd be a lot more of these cyclists getting run over from behind. Instead, we read about a lot more cyclists being drifted into while riding far from the normal path of faster traffic.
Joe, here's the real deal. I more or less ride in the way *you* advocate, seriously. I am almost always on the travelled portion of the road unless there is overtaking traffic. I do this mostly for speed benefits, but I think that it does SOMETIMES help get overtaking driver's attention.
It's also nearly gotten me hit a few times in events I have mentioned in other threads
But it remains just an opinion that I have, and is not based on any fact or study. So I keep this types of theories to myself and don't try to present them as possible solutions to fatal collisions that I know almost nothing about.
Honestly, I use a centerish position mainly to avoid conflicts at intersections that might arise if I defaulted to the right and to avoid the debris situation that can change on a daily basis on the shoulders of the heavily trafficked roads I ride. Getting overtaking drivers' attention really is just a side benefit, as is being able to go faster, particularly on steep downhills. The fact that you get such a critically important side benefit for doing nothing abnormal (for a default centered rider) makes me such a staunch advocate for this style of riding. I'm not forcing anyone to ride like me but getting more cyclists to consider how important lane position is is something I think could benefit a great many cyclists so I talk about it whenever the chance arises.
If you could link to you other threads that you mention above, I'd appreciate it. I don't remember reading them but I am interested in reading about your experiences.
Speed and inattention are a real issue that cannot be solved with powerweaving and other silly tricks. The source of the problem lies with the drivers and it is there that the solutions can be made. Anything less is just coping mechanism.
You're correct. The cyclist cannot solve the problem but I believe the risk can be mitigated to the point where it is a non-issue even though it's basically a highly unlikely scenario already.
"bikers should'nt be allowed on any street in which the speed is over 25 mph, the streets are just too busy. to often bikes are impeeding the general flow of traffic causing a dangerous situation for the biker and cars that may not be aware of the biker until the car is right on top of them. its just safe. there are already enough things to be alert for in busy traffic as it is let alone haveing to work you way around a bike in that same traffic" - reply to article on Kansas City Papers comment section by anonymous
I fully agree with the position posted by this person. No motor vehicle driver should have to contend with other vehicles with such a wide speed variance as we now have with cyclists and cars on 45 and higher speed roads.
The speed limits on all non interstate roads should therefore be lowered to 25 mph or less.
Sheesh! This sort of attitude- "It's too hard to watch out for others, let's make them stay out of my way" -is way too common in our society. Let's not reinforce it by cowering in the gutter and giving up our rights to the road.
...Because, after all, the fear of being mowed down from behind in broad daylight whilst riding properly is so "irrational" only a lunatic would have such fear.
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/225988.html
This is a tragic affair.
How many times have posters in BikeForums been sternly corrected for using another cyclist's injury or death to further a political cycling-advocacy agenda? I've lost count.
This sort of attitude- "It's too hard to watch out for others, let's make them stay out of my way" -is way too common in our society. Let's not reinforce it by cowering in the gutter and giving up our rights to the road.
I don't want to ride in front of people who can't for the life of them figure out how to drive safely with slower people in their path. No, let's not reinforce this attitude by continuing to allow those people to drive. Let's take away their licenses.
Let's take away their licenses.
+1
It is nothing more that people being aware of their surroundings like they should be. Kids run out into streets without looking to get a toy, deer run into the roadway (me and it nearly went through my windshield at 45mph!), etc. I use a phone headset when I can but if not, I know enough to literally drop the cell phone to pay attention to driving. Even with the headset I will tell people to hold, as necessary, while I navigate traffic. I am by no means perfect but I know what I should do and take responsibility when I fail.
The cyclists were said to be riding at the right edge of the right lane, a lane which has been confirmed to be very wide which supports what is shown in the Google maps image. Not 100% certain, but pretty close.
They were still in a live lane on a legally travelled portion of the roadway. We think that they might have been right of where most traffic drives, but we can't prove it.
I realize I'm making some small assumptions here but you have to admit that they are based on common driving practice, not on a 0.01% chance that this driver was acting way out of the ordinary.
I'm not sure where the 0.01% came from, but if this driver had been acting ordinarily he wouldn't have hot anyone, would he have? Personally, I'm not worried about vehicles passing me in the *ordinary* fashion, it's the vehicles acting odd that create problems.
Illegally? Hardly. The far right rule is applicable to slow moving vehicles only. If there is no faster traffic, you are just a vehicle and can ride as far left as you please. Moving aside when faster traffic approaches (with some attempt to verify that they have noticed you first) is part of defaulting to a centerish position and is consistent with the vehicle code. Remember, there's no bike lane on this road so even if the state had a mandatory bike lane law, it would not be in effect.
We have no idea what the traffic conditions were, so we cannot say whether we (as in those of us who ride in the often-travelled part of the roadway) would have been. If there is faster traffic overtaking (and there almost always is on my rides) then I am as far right as practical as per the law, and so would you have been, I think, based on what you just said.
Hence, in the above I think that you're assuming that the vehicle in these overtaking accidents is the FIRST car to come along in a while, to the extent that the cyclist sees them and moves over, supposedly getting attention in the process. We have no idea if these so-called drifting vehicles were in fact the second, third, forth cars in a group. HH has presented a bunch of opinions on why he thinks the first car is the biggest risk, but there are no facts anywhere, and this stance is at odds with my personal experience of near-misses, so I am going to dispute it until some kind of hard evidence appears.
Do you not agree that being brushed by traffic that has chosen to not give you enough space (for whatever reason) is a lot different than being hit from behind by traffic that has not seen you at all?
There is nothing in being "brushed" or being "hit" that defines anything about a motorist seeing you. An provincial police officer cycling on a regional road in the Toronto area a year ago was fatally struck by the mirror of a dump truck. The driver said he saw the cyclist but misjudged the passing distance. Lots of motorists who have passed real, real close to me claimed that they didn't see me when I caught up to them and yelled.
If drivers were so inattentive that they are not noticing things right in front of them on a regular basis, there'd be a lot more of these cyclists getting run over from behind. Instead, we read about a lot more cyclists being drifted into while riding far from the normal path of faster traffic.
I think that we *read* about these things because most cyclists ride out of the way of traffic, and people like you and I, riding further left, are rare. Sure there are lanes that are too narrow to share, but how many cyclists ride on these lanes when there is a high relative speed difference?
You're interpreting an statistical artifact created by the location most cyclists ride to draw a conclusion about the location they most often get hit. If we rode in the middle of the lane like cars, we'd more often get rear-ended in the middle of the lane, also like cars.
The ugliest of my centralist-lane incidents is summarized here in post 74:
http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271605&page=3
They were still in a live lane on a legally travelled portion of the roadway. We think that they might have been right of where most traffic drives, but we can't prove it.
Without a police or driver statement, you are right.
I'm not sure where the 0.01% came from, but if this driver had been acting ordinarily he wouldn't have hot anyone, would he have? Personally, I'm not worried about vehicles passing me in the *ordinary* fashion, it's the vehicles acting odd that create problems.
I made the 0.01% up based on experience where people stay near towards the left side of wide lanes. The wider the lane, the further left they stay too. The only reason this guy acted out of the ordinary was because he was not paying attention and drifted right. Until he started that drift, there was no reason to believe he was anything other than an ordinary driver.
We have no idea what the traffic conditions were, so we cannot say whether we (as in those of us who ride in the often-travelled part of the roadway) would have been. If there is faster traffic overtaking (and there almost always is on my rides) then I am as far right as practical as per the law, and so would you have been, I think, based on what you just said.
Hence, in the above I think that you're assuming that the vehicle in these overtaking accidents is the FIRST car to come along in a while, to the extent that the cyclist sees them and moves over, supposedly getting attention in the process. We have no idea if these so-called drifting vehicles were in fact the second, third, forth cars in a group. HH has presented a bunch of opinions on why he thinks the first car is the biggest risk, but there are no facts anywhere, and this stance is at odds with my personal experience of near-misses, so I am going to dispute it until some kind of hard evidence appears.
You bring up a good point about it possibly not being the first car that drifted. I have often thought about what could happen if a motorist in a passing pack didn't realize I was off to the right and drifted in that direction. It's one reason why I prefer to have multiple narrow lanes on heavily travelled roads. I will also try to get more of a reaction from the lead motorist of a big pack before moving over than I will if it's just a few vehicles.
FWIW, I looked up the traffic count on Raytown Road in the area where the accident happened. The traffic count from 2002 (the only one I could find) was less than 3000 vehicles per day where the accident occurred (http://www.marc.org/transportation/mocountmap.pdf). Remember that this is a 4 lane roadway. That's pretty light traffic and probably rules out this drift occurring from a large pack of vehicles. It could have happened with a few vehicles in front of the driver though.
There is nothing in being "brushed" or being "hit" that defines anything about a motorist seeing you. An provincial police officer cycling on a regional road in the Toronto area a year ago was fatally struck by the mirror of a dump truck. The driver said he saw the cyclist but misjudged the passing distance. Lots of motorists who have passed real, real close to me claimed that they didn't see me when I caught up to them and yelled.
Well you can rule out a motorist hitting a cyclist directly from behind as having seen the cyclist unless he was homocidal. A motorist who misjudges passing distance doesn't hit a cyclist directly from behind. They may clip them with a mirror as in your story though. I've had people go a good distance into the oncoming lane to pass me, yet not far enough to give me any more than a foot of space who claimed they never saw me too. I call those people liars.
I think that we *read* about these things because most cyclists ride out of the way of traffic, and people like you and I, riding further left, are rare. Sure there are lanes that are too narrow to share, but how many cyclists ride on these lanes when there is a high relative speed difference?
You're interpreting an statistical artifact created by the location most cyclists ride to draw a conclusion about the location they most often get hit. If we rode in the middle of the lane like cars, we'd more often get rear-ended in the middle of the lane, also like cars.
The roads you most likely find cyclists on in my area are the narrow back roads where speed limits tend to be 35-45mph. The speed difference is much more than it would be in a city and the lanes are far too narrow to share. You will see about half of the cyclists riding in the middle of the lane and the other a little further right. Everyone is riding in a position where they'd get hit if motorists didn't move left.
The ugliest of my centralist-lane incidents is summarized here in post 74:
http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271605&page=3
That's a crappy encounter for sure. I'm still a little unclear about how the events happened in such a way that you were not visible to the guy in the Lexus. You have to wonder if he was just being a real JAM because he saw a cyclist. Not that it makes things any better. I don't know how much a rear view mirror could have helped there either.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.