Where would you ride on this road?

[nova]

where would you ride on THIS road?

Hmm right of the white strip in the center of that huge lane lol.

Im guessing that was a old 4 lane highway at some time in the past. Theres one similar place here but they split it down the middle so you have like a 2/3 wide shoulder on both sides for break down lanes. They used the rest up for a sidewalk.

Ive ridden it twice and its really quite interesting to have a semi passing you at like 55 to 65 mph with tons of room to spare.

In hhs pic id also ride a little left of the right tire spot and the center oil strip. Id want to give my self room to escape a to close pass yet not block traffic to much.

[San Rensho]

Depends on traffic. If traffic is as sparse as it seems from the photo, I'll ride in the middle of the right lane, moving over as traffic approaches from behind.

If there is a constant flow of traffic that is going faster than me, I would ride to the right of the fog line.

[Helmet Head]

The key to be not hit is to be noticed.
The key to be 'not hit' is situational awareness, that is, to remain one step ahead of any road users who may not notice you, given that you may (will) go unnoticed even while riding in the most conspicuous possible position.

Robert
Good point, but really flip sides of the same coin. Once you understand that the key to not getting hit is to be noticed, situational awareness is required to know whether you are noticed or not. And you can't know whether you are noticed or not if you're riding along in a shoulder where the driver approaching from behind has no reason to give you any sign whatsoever with respect to whether he has noticed you, or whether he has not noticed you and moments before he overtakes you something will spill to the floor which he is going to grab, and drift into you in the process (click on the photo in the OP for the full story).

[Helmet Head]

Depends on traffic. If traffic is as sparse as it seems from the photo, I'll ride in the middle of the right lane, moving over as traffic approaches from behind.

If there is a constant flow of traffic that is going faster than me, I would ride to the right of the fog line.
Indeed, if the photo was the same but the road was full of cars, my answer in the poll would be very different. But I don't think I would ride right of the fog line. That shoulder seems too narrow. I would probably ride about 3 feet to the left of the stripe, encouraging the flow of motorists to pass me with about 3 feet on my left. This position would be adjusted based on how effective it was, of course.

[Bushman]

I'd ride wherever the hell i want. If a car approached form the rear i'd move onto the paved shoulder, then back onto the road after they pass.

curious why you call the right road line a "fog line" ? where is this road, Europe?

[mtnwalker]

In the case of what happened in the story it doesn't matter where you position yourself. You will be hit regardless. A semi travelling at speeds of 65 mph can cover 95 ft per second. The driver was fumbling for a jacket and paperwork on the floor. That probably takes 6 seconds at the least. In that time he has covered 570 feet without looking at the road.:eek:

So, if you were in the middle of the lane you will be deadest. On the tire mark you will be deader. Between the tiremark and the fog line you will be dead. On the fog line you will be almost dead. To the right of the line you will be incapacitated for a while. If you were walking on the gravel like that guy in the picture you will be buzzed.

Anyways, under normal circumstances I will typically be to the left of or on the fog line. I've been on roads with shoulder only half a foot to a foot wide and this has worked for me. But if you ever encounter a vehicle whose driver is not looking at you, it wouldn't matter if you had a spotlight pointed to the rear. You will not be seen.

[Helmet Head]

I'd ride wherever the hell i want. If a car approached form the rear i'd move onto the paved shoulder, then back onto the road after they pass.

curious why you call the right road line a "fog line" ? where is this road, Europe?
Click on the photo in the OP for the full story, including location. "Fog line" is a standard American term for the stripe at the edge of the road.

Google it. (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fog+line%22&en-US:official)

[Helmet Head]

In the case of what happened in the story it doesn't matter where you position yourself. You will be hit regardless. A semi travelling at speeds of 65 mph can cover 95 ft per second. The driver was fumbling for a jacket and paperwork on the floor. That probably takes 6 seconds at the least. In that time he has covered 570 feet without looking at the road.:eek:

So, if you were in the middle of the lane you will be deadest. On the tire mark you will be deader. Between the tiremark and the fog line you will be dead. On the fog line you will be almost dead. To the right of the line you will be incapacitated for a while. If you were walking on the gravel like that guy in the picture you will be buzzed.

Anyways, under normal circumstances I will typically be to the left of or on the fog line. I've been on roads with shoulder only half a foot to a foot wide and this has worked for me. But if you ever encounter a vehicle whose driver is not looking at you, it wouldn't matter if you had a spotlight pointed to the rear. You will not be seen.
Six seconds is a very long time to take your eyes off on the road, and much more than is required to drift into the shoulder the bit that was required to take these cyclists out.

But even so, the key is that prior to 2, 3 or 6 seconds that preceded the collision, the drivers was looking at the road (he had to be to have remained on it for more than a few seconds - which he clearly did), and yet he did not NOTICE the cyclists up ahead in the shoulder. So when he finally CHOSE to take his eyes off the road to reach for the jacket or whatever, he had no idea he was putting anyone at risk.

Now roll the clock back 40 seconds prior to the collision, or 34 seconds prior to him take his eyes off the road to deal with the jacket (assuming your 6 seconds). If he's going 60 and the cyclists are going 15, the closing speed is 45 mph, or 66 feet per second. So 40 seconds earlier he's about a half-mile back. 20 seconds later, he's still 14 seconds from taking his eyes off the road, but the cyclists are only a 1/4 mile ahead. Imagine that they are in the middle of the road. Is it possible that this guy won't see them? Sure, but it's highly improbable. Besides, if he does notice them, he will slow down and/or start adjusting left in preparation for passing them, and the cyclists themselves, if they are using mirrors, can confirm all this. So, if they can't confirm that he has NOTICED them, they can adjust, make hand signals, etc., and prepare to bail in the extremely rare case that it comes to that. Now 10 seconds prior to impact, the driver is only 660 feet back (assuming he has not slowed down) and it's virtually impossible for him to NOT notice the cyclists right in front of him IN HIS PATH. That he would CHOOSE to attend to a distraction when he's rapidly approaching what appears to be a hazard to him is practically impossible (and, again, bailing is always the ace in the hole option the situationally aware cyclists always retain). In my experience, what always happens, is the motorist slows down and/or adjust left to pass, and THEN chooses to attend to his distraction.

You see, the key is that driver has to be AWARE of the cyclists' presence up ahead in order to inhibit him from choosing to attend to the distraction before overtaking them in the first place. That's why where you ride matters, because where you ride determines how aware approaching drivers are of your presence.

Read this (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html) for more information on how important it is to achieve RELEVANCE to the drivers in order to get drivers to NOTICE you. And I can think of no better way to be RELEVANT to a driver than to put myself right in his path, and no way to become more IRRELEVANT than to put myself clearly out of his path on the other side of a fog line or bike lane stripe.

[bmike]

if the fog line is the smooth heavy paint, or thermoplastic it will also reduce your rolling resistance, effectively giving you more distance on the same power output. (just don't do this in the rain!)

[MSPD]

I've been riding that way ever since, and whenever I try to advocate it, I get nothing but flack.

The reason you get flak has less to do with your opinion and more to do with your refusal to acknowledge that your position may not be right, not to mention your relentless browbeating style. No matter how much you, as well as your opponents want there to be one, there is NO ABSOLUTE when it comes to "right and wrong" cycling techniques. Yet you refuse to accept anything less than ABSOLUTE agreement, going so far as fashioning news articles about suffering humans and still-warm dead bodies into a virtual soapbox upon which you can continue to broadcast your unproveable hypotheticals and theories. There's your earning of flak.

Flak is also earned by invariably casting doubt and speculation on the actions or eyewitness accounts of the innocent, while NEVER ONCE questioning the account of the perpetrator of the incident. Your post just above this one and long post earlier in this thread (referenced your long post in another thread) never acknowledges that the whole "papers and jacket fell off the seat and I ducked momentarily to pick them up" claim is undoubtedly a giant hot steaming pile of bullsh*t. Let's focus on what else he was doing because his were the actions that were wrong. What caused that stuff to fall off the seat on a seemingly straight, flat road? What else were you doing Mr. Zimmerman? I CALL BULLSH*T. I CALL GROSS NEGLIGENCE. You want to speculate and hypothesize? Something else was going on. Fact. Papers and a jacket don't just magically fall off a seat. But oh, it must have been the cyclists' position on the road. Let's spend hours writing, debating and arguing on a forum trying to correct which side of a f*cking fog line people LEGALLY cycle on instead of hours writing to, debating and arguing with our legislators to flood their minds full of information and stories that will prompt them to get off their lazy asses and fu*king do something for once to affect some REAL change in motorists' distracted and negligent habits. Until then, they get their share of flak.

No. You simply take the motorists' story at face value, accepting it as evidence to focus your casting of dispersions on the actions of the victim who was doing nothing wrong. Hear that? DOING NOTHING WRONG. (I know you'll read that as "doing nothing right" through your filters of righteousness, so once again, DOING NOTHING WRONG. Get the difference?) Flak earned. Yeah...let's roll the clock back 40 (or 34) seconds. Let's do it. This a-hole wasn't attentively scanning the road in a manner which would have had him noticing, at several hundred feet, cyclists three feet to the left of where they actually were. He didn't think "hmm...cyclists in my path = hazard, cyclists on the shoulder = dismiss". He was too damn*d busy shuffling papers, making phone calls, jacking off, or whatever else he isn't telling us that he was UNDOUBTEDLY GUILTY OF. He wasn't noticing anything. Not the center of the road, not the shoulder of the road, not anything. He would have hit a f*cking UFO if it had landed on the center stripe. Your whole theory is based on accepting HIS B.S. version of events.

You, as well as your opponents have a lot to contribute to a better and safer cycling world. For that, you get no flak. For wasting precious hours beating those who don't agree with you to the letter into submission instead of using your gift of prose constructively, you get flak.

[SSP]

It is a fact that all drivers pay enough attention to the road in front of them to stay on the road most of the time.

It's also a fact that not an hour goes by without some driver somewhere running into a large stationary object sitting in the middle of the road. Stopped semi's, police cruisers with flashing lights, school buses, construction equipment, etc. have all been run into by drivers...even though those objects are directly in the driver's path. Sometimes it's due to drugs/alcohol, sometimes it's due to inattention.

The fact that this type of accident occurs with startling regularity belies your unsubstantiated claims that riding in the center of the road will help enhance cyclists' safety.

[Helmet Head]

The reason you get flak has less to do with your opinion and more to do with your refusal to acknowledge that your position may not be right, not to mention your relentless browbeating style. No matter how much you, as well as your opponents want there to be one, there is NO ABSOLUTE when it comes to "right and wrong" cycling techniques. Yet you refuse to accept anything less than ABSOLUTE agreement, going so far as fashioning news articles about suffering humans and still-warm dead bodies into a virtual soapbox upon which you can continue to broadcast your unproveable hypotheticals and theories. There's your earning of flak.

Flak is also earned by invariably casting doubt and speculation on the actions or eyewitness accounts of the innocent, while NEVER ONCE questioning the account of the perpetrator of the incident. Your post just above this one and long post earlier in this thread (referenced your long post in another thread) never acknowledges that the whole "papers and jacket fell off the seat and I ducked momentarily to pick them up" claim is undoubtedly a giant hot steaming pile of bullsh*t. Let's focus on what else he was doing because his were the actions that were wrong. What caused that stuff to fall off the seat on a seemingly straight, flat road? What else were you doing Mr. Zimmerman? I CALL BULLSH*T. I CALL GROSS NEGLIGENCE. You want to speculate and hypothesize? Something else was going on. Fact. Papers and a jacket don't just magically fall off a seat. But oh, it must have been the cyclists' position on the road. Let's spend hours writing, debating and arguing on a forum trying to correct which side of a f*cking fog line people LEGALLY cycle on instead of hours writing to, debating and arguing with our legislators to flood their minds full of information and stories that will prompt them to get off their lazy asses and fu*king do something for once to affect some REAL change in motorists' distracted and negligent habits. Until then, they get their share of flak.

No. You simply take the motorists' story at face value, accepting it as evidence to focus your casting of dispersions on the actions of the victim who was doing nothing wrong. Hear that? DOING NOTHING WRONG. (I know you'll read that as "doing nothing right" through your filters of righteousness, so once again, DOING NOTHING WRONG. Get the difference?) Flak earned. Yeah...let's roll the clock back 40 (or 34) seconds. Let's do it. This a-hole wasn't attentively scanning the road in a manner which would have had him noticing, at several hundred feet, cyclists three feet to the left of where they actually were. He didn't think "hmm...cyclists in my path = hazard, cyclists on the shoulder = dismiss". He was too damn*d busy shuffling papers, making phone calls, jacking off, or whatever else he isn't telling us that he was UNDOUBTEDLY GUILTY OF. He wasn't noticing anything. Not the center of the road, not the shoulder of the road, not anything. He would have hit a f*cking UFO if it had landed on the center stripe. Your whole theory is based on accepting HIS B.S. version of events.

You, as well as your opponents have a lot to contribute to a better and safer cycling world. For that, you get no flak. For wasting precious hours beating those who don't agree with you to the letter into submission instead of using your gift of prose constructively, you get flak.

I acknowledge I might be wrong.

What you call "browbeating style" I call "addressing all points raised".

I agree "there is NO ABSOLUTE when it comes to "right and wrong" cycling techniques."
I do not "refuse to accept anything less than ABSOLUTE agreement".

It's not about "broadcast unproveable hypotheticals and theories". It's about discussing the role of lane position in cycling safety using real world examples.

So why the flak?

I've addressed the point of ignoring the wrongfulness of the driver in a cycling forum countless times. First, it would be preaching to the choir. What's the point? Second, no matter how wrong the driver is, many if not most or even all drivers don't pay attention from time to time, and we need to acknowledge that and ride accordingly.

Whether the victim was doing nothing wrong is also irrelevant to safety. He got hurt, and it was, I believe for reasons stated numerous times, [I]easily preventable. When I specify the reasons why, I get flak. When I show how not doing what I advocate results in crashes like this, I get flak. When I refute alleged examples of cyclists getting hurt are supposedly riding as I recommend by showing how they were not, I get flak. It's all flak, and little to no substance. Speaking of conjecture, this is a beaut:

This a-hole wasn't attentively scanning the road in a manner which would have had him noticing, at several hundred feet, cyclists three feet to the left of where they actually were. He didn't think "hmm...cyclists in my path = hazard, cyclists on the shoulder = dismiss". He was too damn*d busy shuffling papers, making phone calls, jacking off, or whatever else he isn't telling us that he was UNDOUBTEDLY GUILTY OF. He wasn't noticing anything. Not the center of the road, not the shoulder of the road, not anything. He would have hit a f*cking UFO if it had landed on the center stripe.The best one can say about that is that it might be true, but it's highly unlikely. And even so, if the cyclists were lane-centered and paying attention with regular/frequent mirror scans, as I advocate all drivers including all traffic cyclists do, they would have realized that he was not aware of their presence long before it was too late for them to do something to avoid collision.

[Helmet Head]

It's also a fact that not an hour goes by without some driver somewhere running into a large stationary object sitting in the middle of the road. Stopped semi's, police cruisers with flashing lights, school buses, construction equipment, etc. have all been run into by drivers...even though those objects are directly in the driver's path. Sometimes it's due to drugs/alcohol, sometimes it's due to inattention.

The fact that this type of accident occurs with startling regularity belies your unsubstantiated claims that riding in the center of the road will help enhance cyclists' safety.
What part of trust but verify do you not understand?

While riding centered might make you slightly more at risk to getting hit from behind IF YOU DON'T REGULARLY/FREQUENTLY SCAN TO THE REAR WITH A MIRROR (a big IF), doing so also makes you much more conspicuous and greatly improves sight lines to and from you, as well as improving escape/buffer space. In short, it makes you much less likely to be involved with the much more likely conflict with crossing traffic in front of you. It also makes you less likely to fall victim to the inadvertent drift type of crash discussed in this thread. It's a tradeoff well worth it, especially (but even without) given the lack of any downside if you maintain situational awareness including regularly/frequently scanning to the rear with a mirror, and taking appropriate action when approaching fsdt from behind is not exhibiting signs of noticing you.

[bmike]

I
Whether the victim was doing nothing wrong is also irrelevant to safety. He got hurt, and it was, I believe for reasons stated numerous times, easily preventable.

It's easily preventable?
You are armchair quarterbacking this thing. Easily is relative, and unless you know all the facts and all the physics involved, you really can't say it was easily preventable. Doing so implies you are omniscient to all the variables, facts, figures, and reasons.

Someone died. They were killed while cycling, by an admitted inattentive driver, and you continue to preach that somehow if he were more in the road it could have saved his life. Well - if the driver were paying attention it would have saved his life. If the cyclist stopped for an ice cream cone it could have saved his life. If the cyclist had a flat a few miles back it could have saved his life. If the driver had ran out of gas - the cyclist would be alive. If neither of them were on the road this could have been avoided.

I doubt lane positioning, clothing choices, or even if he were riding with John Forester himself would have helped...

[acroy]

Zounds, some of you think that shoulder is "too narrow" to ride in??!!

wimps! can you ride a straight line?

that thing is plenty of room for a bike. That shoulder is about double what I have in a nasty section on my commute. contending with annoyed drivers, gravel & cement trucks, 45-50mph, heavy traffic in both directions. Oh and the lanes are narrower too... And oh yeah, a curb on the R side, in wait to catch a pedal on.

where is the safest palce to ride? ---> as far from the cars as possible! that means in the shoulder!

but frankly, when id rive my commute, I find it much more comfortable when the cyclist is to one side of the white line, and I'm on the other. It gives a clear dividing line between where is who's space.

[Helmet Head]

It's easily preventable?
You are armchair quarterbacking this thing. Easily is relative, and unless you know all the facts and all the physics involved, you really can't say it was easily preventable. Doing so implies you are omniscient to all the variables, facts, figures, and reasons.

Someone died. They were killed while cycling, by an admitted inattentive driver, and you continue to preach that somehow if he were more in the road it could have saved his life. Well - if the driver were paying attention it would have saved his life. If the cyclist stopped for an ice cream cone it could have saved his life. If the cyclist had a flat a few miles back it could have saved his life. If the driver had ran out of gas - the cyclist would be alive. If neither of them were on the road this could have been avoided.

I doubt lane positioning, clothing choices, or even if he were riding with John Forester himself would have helped...
Are you paying attention to even the known details here? No one died in this particular crash, though the injuries were severe. I don't know that John Forester would eschew the shoulder on this road the way I would. In fact, he would probably use it.

I believe this crash could have been easily avoided because I know, if you are riding near the center of the lane, it is easy to determine on a long straight road whether drivers in traffic approaching from behind have noticed you or not. I also know that it easy to get their attention long before it's too late. I also know you can bail in less than a second into the dirt shoulder if it comes to that. I am not basing this on omniscience of any other "variables, facts, figures, and reasons". I'm contending whatever they are, they are irrelevant to my conclusion that this crash would be easy to avoid by an attentive cyclist who has situational awareness, including whether drivers approaching from behind are aware of him or not.

[MSPD]

[QUOTE=Helmet Head;5115796]Speaking of conjecture, this is a beaut:[QUOTE]

Of course it was a "beaut". The purpose of that was to illustrate the absurdity of your baseless speculation. But, had I meant it earnestly, the theory would be no more or less valid/plausible than yours. I wasn't there and neither were you -- neither of us has any basis in fact other than the account of the perpetrator and the third-hand information of a journalist.

I choose not to advocate based on the face value of the words of a man who mowed down two cyclists on a straight road in broad daylight (especially since he's obviously telling the exact truth about it).

[Helmet Head]

The other reason this is so important to me, or perhaps the main reason, is the alternative logical conclusion is that the cyclists probably could have done nothing to prevent this crash, and, so, it's arguably inherently dangerous to ride on roads like this at all.

[SSP]

I acknowledge I might be wrong.

What you call "browbeating style" I call "addressing all points raised".

In the world of psychology, that's called "positive reframing".

In the real world, "addressing all points raised" = irritating, repetitive, blowhard (but, this is old news to most BF members).

[SSP]

The other reason this is so important to me, or perhaps the main reason, is the alternative logical conclusion is that the cyclists probably could have done nothing to prevent this crash, and, so, it's arguably inherently dangerous to ride on roads like this at all.

That's called "cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)".

You seem incapable of acknowledging that riding a bike in traffic carries with it the risk of injury or death. Instead, you've focused all your energies on proving your (so far unproven) theories that all cycling accidents can be avoided through "proper" techniques (as defined by you).

While I'm sure this gives you some measure of comfort, it ignores the underlying realities.

Face it, death and injury can occur in many activities...we try to make allowances for the risks involved, and be as "vigilant" as possible, but sometimes sh*t happens and people get injured or die.

[MSPD]

The other reason this is so important to me, or perhaps the main reason, is the alternative logical conclusion is that the cyclists probably could have done nothing to prevent this crash, and, so, it's arguably inherently dangerous to ride on roads like this at all.

Or the third "alternative logical conclusion" is that sometimes bad things happen even to people who were doing everything right in inherently safe places.

[Helmet Head]

That's called "cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)".

You seem incapable of acknowledging that riding a bike in traffic carries with it the risk of injury or death. Instead, you've focused all your energies on proving your (so far unproven) theories that all cycling accidents can be avoided through "proper" techniques (as defined by you).

While I'm sure this gives you some measure of comfort, it ignores the underlying realities.

Face it, death and injury can occur in many activities...we try to make allowances for the risks involved, and be as "vigilant" as possible, but sometimes sh*t happens and people get injured or die.


Or the third "alternative logical conclusion" is that sometimes bad things happen even to people who were doing everything right in inherently safe places.
No doubt sometimes bad things happen. But given how often cyclists are hit and often killed in inadvertent drift crashes like this, I'm not willing to accept that risk. I want to do everything I can to reduce the risk. I know I can't eliminate it, of course. But, in the absence of faster same direction traffic, using lane position to be conspicuous, by riding in a centerish lane position, while maintaining situational awareness to the rear as well as to the front, rather than riding in the shoulder or bike lane, is easy and a no-brainer.

[MSPD]

No doubt sometimes bad things happen. But given how often cyclists are hit and often killed in inadvertent drift crashes like this, I'm not willing to accept that risk. I want to do everything I can to reduce the risk. I know I can't eliminate it, of course. But, in the absence of faster same direction traffic, using lane position to be conspicuous, by riding in a centerish lane position, while maintaining situational awareness to the rear as well as to the front, rather than riding in the shoulder or bike lane, is easy and a no-brainer.

Your first version of this (before multiple edits, added bolding and crazy colors) was much better.

And nothing about any of this is a "no-brainer".

[Helmet Head]

Your first version of this (before multiple edits, added bolding and crazy colors) was much better.

And nothing about any of this is a "no-brainer".
I wanted to kill two birds with one stone (reply to both of your posts), and used color to show where I was addressing what.

It is a no-brainer once you get accustomed to riding in this manner. I know because I ride this way
all the time, and it does take very little mental effort. At least for me.


in the absence of faster same direction traffic, using lane position to be conspicuous, by riding in a centerish lane position, while maintaining situational awareness to the rear as well as to the front, rather than riding in the shoulder or bike lane, is easy and a no-brainer.

[bmike]

scooby doo ending time... if it wasn't for those damned cyclists the driver could have gotten away with his dastardly plan.

[bmike]

I wanted to kill two birds with one stone (reply to both of your posts), and used color to show where I was addressing what.

It is a no-brainer once you get accustomed to riding in this manner. I know because I ride this way all the time, and it does take very little mental effort. At least for me.

pity the rest of us without the mental capacity...

[MSPD]

It is a no-brainer once you get accustomed to riding in this manner. I know because I ride this way
all the time, and it does take very little mental effort. At least for me.

So when you die because you can't powerweave fast enough out of the path of a speeding idiot that approaches you too fast to mentally process a cyclist riding where they've never seen a cyclist before (in the middle of the road vs. the ample shoulder that all of the other cyclists are always on) and mows you down from behind, I can come on here within hours of your death and post definitively that not only do you hold responsibility for your own death because you were a poor cyclist, but also because you tended to zone out and use little mental effort while cycling.

Cool.

[joejack951]

So when you die because you can't powerweave fast enough out of the path of a speeding idiot that approaches you too fast to mentally process a cyclist riding where they've never seen a cyclist before (in the middle of the road vs. the ample shoulder that all of the other cyclists are always on) and mows you down from behind, I can come on here within hours of your death and post definitively that not only do you hold responsibility for your own death because you were a poor cyclist, but also because you tended to zone out and use little mental effort while cycling.

Cool.

Funny that you mention cycling where someone has never seen a cyclist before. I'm pretty much 100% certain after a few recent talks with the police that no other cyclist near me takes lanes where I do, yet in all the thousands of miles of riding my bike in all weather conditions in places where NO other cyclist rides, no one has managed to completely miss me and run me over. Some do notice later than others as is evident by the view in my mirror, but they notice in plenty of time to react calmly. I find the small amount of increased attention that I now pay while riding is of great benefit for keeping my mind from wandering and allowing me to drift into a parallel crack or hit a pothole in my path, or worse.

[SSP]

No doubt sometimes bad things happen. But given how often cyclists are hit and often killed in inadvertent drift crashes like this, I'm not willing to accept that risk. I want to do everything I can to reduce the risk. I know I can't eliminate it, of course. But, in the absence of faster same direction traffic, using lane position to be conspicuous, by riding in a centerish lane position, while maintaining situational awareness to the rear as well as to the front, rather than riding in the shoulder or bike lane, is easy and a no-brainer.

Well, if that gives you comfort, and a sense that you are in control of things...OK.

The problem is that you post (literally) tens of thousands of words repeating your theories ad nauseam, when you have not a shred of objective proof that they enhance cyclists' safety in the real world.

When combined with the fact that your unproven assertions have been publicly challenged by several noted cycling authorities...it's easy to conclude that you're little more than a fear-obsessed blowhard.

[Helmet Head]

pity the rest of us without the mental capacity...
Doh! I didn't mean it to sound that way. I'm just saying it's my personal experience that it takes very little mental effort to ride in this manner, once you get used to it. It is a no-brainer.

[MSPD]

I'm with you joejack. I'm attentive and mentally engaged at all times while cycling, with or without traffic. There are just too many holes, cracks, objects, squirrels, whatever out there waiting to try and dump me onto the pavement.

It's only a matter of time before we hear this: "Gosh, I was driving along just cresting a hill, bent over to pick up some papers/jacket/ringing cell phone and when I looked up there was this crazy cyclist right in the middle of the lane! He saw me in his helmet mirror when I came over the hill and quickly bailed out to the shoulder but I was already on top of him and my natural human instinct when I saw him was to slam on the brakes and jerk the wheel to the right. I ended up losing control and plowing him over on the shoulder! It all happened in two seconds. What have I done?!?"

[SSP]

Doh! I didn't mean it to sound that way. I'm just saying it's my personal experience that it takes very little mental effort to ride in this manner, once you get used to it. It is a no-brainer.

As has been pointed out to you many times in the past, your "technique" requires constant vigilance on the part of the cyclist. Much more so than is required to ride in a well-designed bike lane.

You yourself said as much in post #63 above where you said, your method works "if you maintain situational awareness including regularly/frequently scanning to the rear with a mirror, and taking appropriate action when approaching fsdt from behind is not exhibiting signs of noticing you."

[Helmet Head]

So when you die because you can't powerweave fast enough out of the path of a speeding idiot that approaches you too fast to mentally process a cyclist riding where they've never seen a cyclist before (in the middle of the road vs. the ample shoulder that all of the other cyclists are always on) and mows you down from behind, I can come on here within hours of your death and post definitively that not only do you hold responsibility for your own death because you were a poor cyclist, but also because you tended to zone out and use little mental effort while cycling.

Cool.
How would I not be able to "powerweave fast enough out of the path of a speeding idiot"?

Even at a closing speed of 70 mph that puts the approaching driver 500 feet back almost 5 full seconds before he reaches me. On any road where 70 mph closing speeds are realistic, 500 feet and 5 full seconds is PLENTY of time and space to bail, which can be done in less than a second. No problem.

Now, of course, anything is possible. Maybe the jerk rented a Ferrari and is coming at 150 mph around a blind corner. In that case, yeah, I would probably be dead. I'll give you that. I'm willing to live with those odds. I'm not willing to live with the odds required of cyclists who blindly ride along in bike lanes and shoulders betting their lives that each and every driver who overtakes them will not overlook them and choose to attend to a drift-causing distraction moments before overtaking. It happens way too often.

[Helmet Head]

Well, if that gives you comfort, and a sense that you are in control of things...OK.

The problem is that you post (literally) tens of thousands of words repeating your theories ad nauseam, when you have not a shred of objective proof that they enhance cyclists' safety in the real world.

When combined with the fact that your unproven assertions have been publicly challenged by several noted cycling authorities...it's easy to conclude that you're little more than a fear-obsessed blowhard.
All flak and no substance, again.

[SSP]

So much fear...

And so little proof that PowerWeaving(TM) can reduce the odds of getting in an accident.

[SSP]

All flak and no substance, again.

Pointing out that you have no objective evidence that your techniques enhance cyclists' safety, and that they have been challenged by internationally respected cycling authorities is hardly "all flak". :rolleyes:

[MSPD]

How would I not be able to "powerweave fast enough out of the path of a speeding idiot"?


Driver is cresting a long shallow hill or rounding a long gradual curve. His "closing time" to notice you is diminished by two of those five seconds. At the same time, you are momentarily distracted by a road hazard ahead (few pieces of debris in the road like a blown out semi tire or some rocks that have fallen from a truck or some road defect) and have, for a couple seconds, neglected to make your regular check of the mirror while you negotiate the hazard. Your "closing time" is diminished as well.

Both are very common situations. All it takes is the combination of two. Kind of like two opposing semis meeting.

It's just as likely as the scenario that started this thread.

[Helmet Head]

As has been pointed out to you many times in the past, your "technique" requires constant vigilance on the part of the cyclist. Much more so than is required to ride in a well-designed bike lane.

You yourself said as much in post #63 above where you said, your method works "if you maintain situational awareness including regularly/frequently scanning to the rear with a mirror, and taking appropriate action when approaching fsdt from behind is not exhibiting signs of noticing you."
Thinking that riding in bike lanes requires less vigilance is classic false sense of security induced by bike lanes. If anything, by riding more centerish you don't have to rely on quite as much vigilance because you are more conspicuous. The falsehood of the alleged safety of riding "off to the side" in a bike lane or shoulder, even on long stretches between intersections, is refuted by examples such as the tragedy we're talking about here.

I put a lot of emphasis on mirror use because it's useful just in case. But the fact is that the vast, vast majority of the time, if not always, practically speaking, everybody approaching from behind you sees you, without exception. Even when I can't confirm that someone approaching from behind sees me, they almost certainly do. I just feel better if I can get them to slow down or adjust to confirm it.

And the fact that car drivers rear-end buses from time to time does not really address this, since if you ride integrated with traffic much you know how much more conspicuous you are on a bike than is a bus, as indicated by how much more space drivers tend to give you, and how much sooner (if you're used to "riding the margins" and "staying out of the way", you probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about).

What that means is that you don't really have to pay attention to each and every driver coming from behind. In fact, you can probably ignore all of them. Now, in the unlikely event that one of them someday might actually overlook a cyclist despite him being right in front of him in his path, I advocate and practice regular monitoring. But this is not required. And certainly riding this way does not require any more vigilance for safety than is required while riding in a bike lane, probably less.

[Allister]

So much fear...

Yeah. You can almost smell it.

[SSP]

Thinking that riding in bike lanes requires less vigilance is classic false sense of security induced by bike lanes. If anything, by riding more centerish you don't have to rely on quite as much vigilance because you are more conspicuous. The falsehood of the alleged safety of riding "off to the side" in a bike lane or shoulder, even on long stretches between intersections, is refuted by examples such as the tragedy we're talking about here.

I put a lot of emphasis on mirror use because it's useful just in case. But the fact is that the vast, vast majority of the time, if not always, practically speaking, everybody approaching from behind you sees you, without exception. And the fact that car drivers rear-end buses from time to time does not really address this, since if you ride integrated with traffic much you know how much more conspicuous you are on a bike than is a bus, as indicated by how much more space drivers tend to give you, and how much sooner (if you're used to "riding the margins" and "staying out of the way", you probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about).

What that means is that you don't really have to pay attention to each and every driver coming from behind. In fact, you can probably ignore all of them. Now, in the unlikely even that one of them someday might actually overlook a cyclist despite him being right in front of him in his path, I advocate and practice regular monitoring. But this is not required. And certainly riding this way does not require any more vigilance for safety than is required while riding in a bike lane, probably less.

What have you been smoking today?

Are you seriously asserting that a cyclist in the roadway is more conspicuous than a school bus? Your mental processes seem quite out of touch with reality today.

[Helmet Head]

Driver is cresting a long shallow hill or rounding a long gradual curve. His "closing time" to notice you is diminished by two of those five seconds. At the same time, you are momentarily distracted by a road hazard ahead (few pieces of debris in the road like a blown out semi tire or some rocks that have fallen from a truck or some road defect) and have, for a couple seconds, neglected to make your regular check of the mirror while you negotiate the hazard. Your "closing time" is diminished as well.

Both are very common situations. All it takes is the combination of two. Kind of like two opposing semis meeting.

It's just as likely as the scenario that started this thread.
The scenario that started this thread was a long/straight road with great sight lines.

Blind curves and crests are a common hazard and one for which a slow moving cyclist needs to prepare. Exactly how those are handled depends on the particular circumstances, but are special cases, to be sure. The bottom line is that the vigilant cyclist will not put himself in a situation where he is vulnerable like that. In fact, inadvertent drift is practically unheard of where sight lines are shortened, because drivers are not confident about what's going on in front of them, and are typically unwilling to attend to a distraction for a period of time long enough to cause a drift. So in those cases, especially if there are no intersections, moving right is often the reasonable course of action.

[Helmet Head]

What have you been smoking today?

Are you seriously asserting that a cyclist in the roadway is more conspicuous that a school bus? Your mental processes seem quite out of touch with reality today.
Yep. Like I said, if you're used to "riding the margins" and "staying out of the way", you probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about.

[SSP]

Yep. Like I said, if you're used to "riding the margins" and "staying out of the way", you probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about.

You're the one who needs to buy a clue...especially if you really think a cyclist is more conspicuous than a school bus. :rolleyes:

As for your attempt at insult - I ride very assertively, and routinely "push" traffic left by moving my bike left when I see a "close shave" developing. I don't hide at the edge of the roadway, and urge others not to do so either.

But, I don't ride out in the center of the lane when there's a perfectly good bike lane or WOL available.

And I also have personal experience with getting hit by FSDT while I was riding in the center of the road on a winding downhill going 40 mph.

But, hey, blather and bloviate on HH...it's what you're good at. Perhaps we'll all come to appreciate the validity of your techniques after you've posted a few hundred thousand more words explaining them. :rolleyes:

[Allister]

It is a fact that all drivers pay enough attention to the road in front of them to stay on the road most of the time. It is also a fact that no drivers pay 100% attention to the road in front of them all of the time. That "whole bunch of conjecture" was based on these simple facts, and nothing more.

If this driver had been doing that, he would've seen them on the shoulder just as readily.

You say most drivers are aware of where they're going, but everything you write is predicated on the idea that they're not going to see you unless you figuratively jump around in front of them, which indicates to me that you actually believe the exact opposite.

The key to be not hit is to be noticed. The key to being noticed is to be, for an extended period of time, in space where drivers are paying attention. Riding in the shoulder (or bike lane) accomplishes none of that.

You really do have a terminal fear of bike lane/shoulders, don't you? They're really not all that bad, you know.

When are you going to figure out that there's as many philosophies of lane positioning as there are cyclists? You've figured out a system that works for you, and that's fine, but others here have figured out their own that works for them, that, considering their continued survival, are probably just as safe. Your apparent need to continually proselytise your's as the One True Method is, frankly, a bit annoying, and to use this crash as a platform for it is more than a little macabre, and insulting to the cyclists who were doing nothing wrong.

My own take on that road is that I'd probably ride on or about the 'fog' line. If there was only the very occasional vehicle, I'd probably take more of the lane, just for the fun of it, but in general I prefer a position that's in the line of sight, but out of the line of travel, wherever that put's me relative to the line.

I use a mirror, and it's just as easy to scan upcoming traffic from the line as from the centre. The key is less lane position, as it is being aware of upcoming traffic. In general I prefer not to have to change my line for the sake of traffic, and not require it of them unecessarily. This is not to say I never claim the lane - I'm as assertive in that as the next rider, but if there's room for everyone to share, I'm happy to do so. Taking a centre lane position when it is unecessary is foolhardy, and more than a little arrogant IMO. But hey, you keep riding in whatever way you think is safest for you. Good luck to you; you're gonna need it.

[MSPD]

In fact, inadvertent drift is practically unheard of where sight lines are shortened, because drivers are not confident about what's going on in front of them, and are typically unwilling to attend to a distraction for a period of time long enough to cause a drift. So in those cases, especially if there are no intersections, moving right is often the reasonable course of action.

OK, I was having fun with the Devil's Advocate bit, but this is just outright nonsense. Hundreds of people across the country die every year from drifting off the road on a curve, overcorrecting and rolling over. Not to mention those that drift the other way across the center line. Come visit me and we can walk down to a road right by my house where the accident reconstruction paint is still on the road from this exact accident.

[Helmet Head]

If this driver had been doing that, he would've seen them on the shoulder just as readily.

You say most drivers are aware of where they're going, but everything you write is predicated on the idea that they're not going to see you unless you figuratively jump around in front of them, which indicates to me that you actually believe the exact opposite.



You really do have a terminal fear of bike lane/shoulders, don't you? They're really not all that bad, you know.

When are you going to figure out that there's as many philosophies of lane positioning as there are cyclists? You've figured out a system that works for you, and that's fine, but others here have figured out their own that works for them, that, considering their continued survival, are probably just as safe. Your apparent need to continually proselytise your's as the One True Method is, frankly, a bit annoying, and to use this crash as a platform for it is more than a little macabre, and insulting to the cyclists who were doing nothing wrong.

My own take on that road is that I'd probably ride on or about the 'fog' line. If there was only the very occasional vehicle, I'd probably take more of the lane, just for the fun of it, but in general I prefer a position that's in the line of sight, but out of the line of travel, wherever that put's me relative to the line.

I use a mirror, and it's just as easy to scan upcoming traffic from the line as from the centre. The key is less lane position, as it is being aware of upcoming traffic. In general I prefer not to have to change my line for the sake of traffic, and not require it of them unecessarily. This is not to say I never claim the lane - I'm as assertive in that as the next rider, but if there's room for everyone to share, I'm happy to do so. Taking a centre lane position when it is unecessary is foolhardy, and more than a little arrogant IMO. But hey, you keep riding in whatever way you think is safest for you. Good luck to you; you're gonna need it.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

[SSP]

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

Ah, yes...the "nobody understands/appreciates what I'm saying" argument.

That card typically gets played somewhere around post #100, so no surprise there. :rolleyes:

[Bushman]

It is 100% the cyclists responsibility to pay attention and be situationally aware while cycling. We as cyclists cannot assume that a motorist will see us. WE need to take the first step. This might mean, gasp, looking behind us once in a while, or using our senses (ears eyes).

[Allister]

Yep. Like I said, if you're used to "riding the margins" and "staying out of the way", you probably have no clue as to what I'm talking about.

There's that fear again, and projecting it onto others that don't mind riding in bike lanes.

It's not about 'staying out of the way' or any other feeling of inferiority. Quite the contrary, it's about getting along with other, faster road users and feeling like an equal part of the traffic. If there is no pressing need to require a lane change of passing motorists, why do it? I'm not that special.

Any lane of sufficient width becomes a defacto double lane, one for bikes, one for cars. Whether or not it's physically delineated with a shoulder/bike lane line is irrelevant, it works exactly like any other travel lane on the road, except the bike side usually has much less traffic, which, call me crazy, I find much more convenient to ride in. You're insistence that riding 'out of the way' of traffic is born from a sense of inferiority or fear says far more about your own sense of inferiority and fear on the road than anyone else's.

Me, I have enough guts to ride on the shoulder, and don't mind motorists passing me, even if it's a little close for comfort at times, so long as they don't actually hit me, I'm good.

[Allister]

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. I'm not entirely sure you do though.