Where would you ride on this road?

[SSP]

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 line 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.

Having been clipped by a trailer and put on the ground at 40 mph, I'll have to respectfully disagree with your allowance for "a little close for comfort at times". I try to never let them get close to me, regardless of whether they're doing it intentionally or not.

I ride with a Take a Look mirror and if I see overtaking traffic is not moving left enough for my comfort, I'll intentionally drift my bike left 12-24" to "push" them further left. 99% of the time it works, and as the overtaking vehicle gets close I drift back to the right...ensuring maximum separation between us.

I especially use this technique when being overtaken by pickups and large SUV's, because they're more likely to be towing a trailer. Often those trailers extend out too far, and often the drivers are not very experienced with towing them (those factors contributed to my accident).

Using my "push 'em left" technique, I typically get about 5 or 6 feet of separation, and that's enough for most situations.

FWIW, where I ride I'm comfortable being very assertive like this...but, unlike HH, I won't say that my technique is the Holy Grail of cycling wisdom or safety. YMMV.

[chipcom]

HH, you get a more receptive audience in P&R to your anti-religion threads. The irony is priceless - in P&R you rail against the evils of religion and believing in a diety when no objective proof exists, then you come back to A&S and preach your branded religion of cycling and expect everyone to buy it on faith, even when it runs contrary to their actual experience. :lol:

[Helmet Head]

I understand perfectly what you're saying. I'm not entirely sure you do though.
I will limit myself to identifying 6 misunderstandings where you clearly show you do not understand what I said in your last 2 or 3 posts. Believe me, there are more. But I hope you understand why I might find effective communication impossible when there is so much misunderstanding about the most fundamental points.
"You say most drivers are aware of where they're going, ..." - I've never said that "most drivers are aware of where they're going". I've said that "most drivers pay attention to what is in front of them in their path much if not most of the time".
"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." - I never said anything about jumping around in front of anyone. I've said that by riding in the center of the lane, long before anyone is close enough to see you, you're already positioned in space where they are most likely to pay the most attention.
"You really do have a terminal fear of bike lane/shoulders, don't you? " -No, I don't. I frequently and regularly ride in both bike lanes and shoulders.
"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." - Because crashes are relatively rare, much can seem to work that doesn't really. Blindly riding in shoulders is a good example.
"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." - this implies that I advocate or practice taking a center lane position when doing so unnecessarily impedes others. I don't.
"If there is no pressing need to require a lane change of passing motorists, why do it? " - No one, certainly not I, has advocated a method that requirs a lane change of passing motorists when there is no pressing need for it. Like I said, you're not paying attention.

[Helmet Head]

Nothing you posted confirms the claim, a "terminal fear of bike lane/shoulders," on my part.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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.
The only "given" is your obsession with the "risk" of being hit or killed as result of an alleged "inadvertent drifting" motorist. And what is a "given" for you is only so much flack over an insignificant issue to those not living in the dogmatic environment of Planet HH.

[Allister]

I will limit myself to identifying 6 misunderstandings where you clearly show you do not understand what I said in your last 2 or 3 posts. Believe me, there are more. But I hope you understand why I might find effective communication impossible when there is so much misunderstanding about the most fundamental points.

It's not my fault that, despite your verbosity, you still can't make your point clear.

"You say most drivers are aware of where they're going, ..." [/I]- I've never said that "most drivers are aware of where they're going". I've said that "most drivers pay attention to what is in front of them in their path much if not most of the time".

And the difference is?

My point is that from half a kilometer back, the difference in visibility of a cyclist roding on the shoulder or in the lane is pretty negligible. If that driver, in this particular case, on that particular road, under those particular conditions didn't see the cyclists on the shoulder, it's unlikely IMO that he'd have seen them in the lane either. In both cases, if they'd been monitoring their mirrors, as you so rightly advocate, they'd have had an equal chance of dodging him no matter where they were riding. If anything, they'd have a better chance on the shoulder as they're already most of the way towards avoiding the crash. Even then, with a driver with that kind of inattentiveness, I wouldn't rate their chances very highly.

"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." [/I]- I never said anything about jumping around in front of anyone. I've said that by riding in the center of the lane, long before anyone is close enough to see you, you're already positioned in space where they are most likely to pay the most attention.

I said 'figuratively'. Pay attention. I'm all for being visible, I just don't think the lengths you go to to achieve it are always necessary. Riding in the lane gives negligible additional visibility to riding just outside it. Bright clothing and sufficient lighting are far more effective.

"You really do have a terminal fear of bike lane/shoulders, don't you? " -No, I don't. I frequently and regularly ride in both bike lanes and shoulders.

Then please, stfu about how dangerous you think they are.

"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."[/I] - Because crashes are relatively rare, much can seem to work that doesn't really.

Who's to say that the same isn't true of your own methodology?

Blindly riding in shoulders is a good example.

Who said anything about 'blindly' riding anywhere? Who's not understanding things now?

"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."[/I] - this implies that I advocate or practice taking a center lane position when doing so unnecessarily impedes others. I don't.

That wasn't clear from your previous posts.

"If there is no pressing need to require a lane change of passing motorists, why do it? " [/I]- No one, certainly not I, has advocated a method that requirs a lane change of passing motorists when there is no pressing need for it.

That wasn't clear from your previous posts.

Like I said, you're not paying attention.

I am paying attention. I can hardly be held at fault for your obtuseness.

In all honesty, we probably don't ride all that differently. I'm all for riding in the lane when necessary, I just suspect I consider it necessary in less situations than you do. Either way, the results are the same - we both get there safely. This is what I was referring to above. Everyone has their own philosophy - your's isn't necessarily the best one, even if there is such a thing.

Where I disagree with you is that, in this specific case, riding in the centre of the lane probably wouldn't have helped these cyclists. I realise that's speculative, but no less so than you were being. Suggesting otherwise shifts a portion of the blame from the motorist to the cyclists, who, from my reading of the story and photo (which is all any of us have to go on) were riding perfectly legally and predictably. To suggest that the driver's ability to see the cyclists was limited by their lane position is clearly ridiculous, and assumes a competency level on the part of the driver inconsistent with the level of competency required to gain a driver's license, never mind a truck license. I say the driver should have seen them wherever they were riding, and unless they suddenly swerved in from of him, he was irresponsible not to, and the blame for the crash is entirely his. This is what you are utterly failing to understand in what I am saying.

[Allister]

Having been clipped by a trailer and put on the ground at 40 mph, I'll have to respectfully disagree with your allowance for "a little close for comfort at times". I try to never let them get close to me, regardless of whether they're doing it intentionally or not.

I ride with a Take a Look mirror and if I see overtaking traffic is not moving left enough for my comfort, I'll intentionally drift my bike left 12-24" to "push" them further left. 99% of the time it works, and as the overtaking vehicle gets close I drift back to the right...ensuring maximum separation between us.

I especially use this technique when being overtaken by pickups and large SUV's, because they're more likely to be towing a trailer. Often those trailers extend out too far, and often the drivers are not very experienced with towing them (those factors contributed to my accident).

Using my "push 'em left" technique, I typically get about 5 or 6 feet of separation, and that's enough for most situations.

FWIW, where I ride I'm comfortable being very assertive like this...but, unlike HH, I won't say that my technique is the Holy Grail of cycling wisdom or safety. YMMV.

Pretty much agree with everything there.

Given the choice, I'd like all passing motorists to give as much room as possible, and I ride in a way that encourages that. Unfortunately, they're not all that co-operative all the time. In those cases anything short of an actual collision is acceptable, if not necessarily comfortable. Actually getting clipped by a trailer, as you did, obviously isn't included in that description.

[maddyfish]

From my reading of that story, they would've been hit no matter where they were positioned. Your point?

Maybe not, if they were riding out in the road, they would be more likely to have been seen.

[RobertHurst]

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.

Being out in traffic is inherently dangerous to some degree, whether you're on a bike, motorcycle, walking or in a car. There is no way to control everything; there will always be some small element of Russian Roulette, in addition to any danger we add for ourselves through our own miscalculations, indiscretions and narcolepsy episodes. IOW, even the perfect cyclist is not perfectly safe. For cyclists, this gnawing lack of control is most undeniable when considering hits from behind. The thought that 'inadvertent drift' collisions are 'easily preventable' with adjustments in lane positioning, etc. has no basis in reality, imo. It's an emotional (albeit hopeful) reaction to a less than perfect reality. HH, do you have any data to suggest that cyclists are more likely to be drifted into while riding on a shoulder than straight-up hit from behind while riding in the travel lane? I can cite plenty examples of each.

Robert

[wll]

To me it looks way to dangerous to bike it, one little miscue and you'll be taking the big dirt nap.

Not for me.

wll

[Bekologist]

......

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, .......

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 (hh's) way does not require any more vigilance for safety than is required while riding in a bike lane, probably less.



Man, that is so far gone.... that last paragraph is a study in contradictions.

[RobertHurst]

To me it looks way to dangerous to bike it, one little miscue and you'll be taking the big dirt nap.

Not for me.


Fair enough. You'll probably want to avoid driving on the freeway as well, then. And walking downtown is out of the question. One little miscue ... hello mister bus.

Don't forget in your calculations of what to do and what not to do that few things in life are as dangerous as sitting around on one's ass all the time.

I say go live life. Take a few chances. Enjoy your freedom. Have fun. Be careful. Ride a bike.

Robert

[Bushman]

Having been clipped by a trailer and put on the ground at 40 mph, I'll have to respectfully disagree with your allowance for "a little close for comfort at times". I try to never let them get close to me, regardless of whether they're doing it intentionally or not.

I ride with a Take a Look mirror and if I see overtaking traffic is not moving left enough for my comfort, I'll intentionally drift my bike left 12-24" to "push" them further left. 99% of the time it works, and as the overtaking vehicle gets close I drift back to the right...ensuring maximum separation between us.

I especially use this technique when being overtaken by pickups and large SUV's, because they're more likely to be towing a trailer. Often those trailers extend out too far, and often the drivers are not very experienced with towing them (those factors contributed to my accident).

Using my "push 'em left" technique, I typically get about 5 or 6 feet of separation, and that's enough for most situations.

FWIW, where I ride I'm comfortable being very assertive like this...but, unlike HH, I won't say that my technique is the Holy Grail of cycling wisdom or safety. YMMV.

+ 1

[bmike]

I say go live life. Take a few chances. Enjoy your freedom. Have fun. Be careful. Ride a bike.

Robert

+1 billion to that.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

To the right of the lane and then over to the shoulder
when a car is approaching from both directions.

[nick burns]

About 6 or 8 inches to the left of the white line.

[SSP]

To the right of the lane and then over to the shoulder
when a car is approaching from both directions.

If it was two Honda Civics I'd move to the right of the line, because the roadway is wide enough for 2 Civics and 1 bike.

But, if it was two F-250 pickups (possibly with extra wide mirror, or towing a trailer), I'd take the lane and indicate to the overtaking driver that he needed to wait until it was clear. When the oncoming traffic clears, I'd move right and wave the overtaking vehicle around.

I've found this works nearly all the time, and most drivers (especially the elderly) are comfortable with me taking charge of what would otherwise be an ambiguous driving situation.

[Helmet Head]

My point is that from half a kilometer back, the difference in visibility of a cyclist riding on the shoulder or in the lane is pretty negligible. If that driver, in this particular case, on that particular road, under those particular conditions didn't see the cyclists on the shoulder, it's unlikely IMO that he'd have seen them in the lane either. In both cases, if they'd been monitoring their mirrors, as you so rightly advocate, they'd have had an equal chance of dodging him no matter where they were riding. If anything, they'd have a better chance on the shoulder as they're already most of the way towards avoiding the crash. Even then, with a driver with that kind of inattentiveness, I wouldn't rate their chances very highly.

This gets at the heart of the matter.
Have you read anything about inattentional blindness and how it works?
Have you read this article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html), for example?
Do you understand and appreciate the difference between sensory conspicuity and cognitive conspicuity?
Do you understand and appreciate the crucial role that relevance often plays in determining whether someone notices something or not?When you say things like "the difference in visibility of a cyclist riding on the shoulder or in the lane is pretty negligible", and "If that driver ... didn't see the cyclists on the shoulder, it's unlikely IMO that he'd have seen them in the lane either", it appears that you are only considering sensory conspicuity and implies the answers to all of these questions is no. If so, there is no way you could even begin to understand my argument, much less appreciate it.

Do as you wish, but if you're willing to take the time to read my posts and respond to them, then please also take the few minutes to read the essential backup material. Otherwise, we're talking in different languages.

Now, you say: If that driver, ... didn't see the cyclists on the shoulder, it's unlikely IMO that he'd have seen them in the lane either.

First, it's not about "seeing", it's about "noticing", "taking notice", and/or "being aware of". This is not a point of semantics. The point of inattentional blindness is that one may subconsciously "see" something right in front of him, but never-the-less not process it consciously. The issue isn't about "seeing", but about whether the driver's subconscious processes the cyclists as being relevant to him, and, if so, when that happens and how relevant the cyclists are.

In terms of avoiding this type of crash, the point of riding further left on this type of road in this type of situation is to appear as relevant as possible as soon as possible to drivers approaching from behind so as to greatly increase the probability that you will be consciously recognized as being relevant long before the driver is about to overtake you. The idea is that a driver's subconscious mind is much less likely to continue evaluating and reevaluating a cyclist up ahead as being irrelevant to the driver approaching closer and closer if that cyclist is clearly in the driver's intended path than if that cyclist is up ahead clearly outside of the driver's path. The stripe plays an important role here, since it clearly defines to the driver's subconscious mind the edge of his intended path.

If you really think about this, I think you will finally come to realize that there is no way, on average, that a cyclist on the other side of the clear edge of a driver's intended path would be subconsciously evaluated anywhere near as relevant as would the cyclist clearly in the driver's intended path. The latter is very likely, sooner or later, to set off all kinds of alarms. The former is likely to never set off any alarms. And that's the problem with respect to setting up the inadvertent drift scenario.

To emphasize the need to "set of alarms", consider this excerpt from the above cited article:

Ironically, inattentional blindness can be caused by too little mental load. When confronted with a monitoring task where the chance of an important event is low, people become bored, and they cease paying close attention. Arousal level drops and attention wanders. People may also go on "auto-pilot" when performing highly practiced tasks, such as driving.On a nearly empty flat/straight rural road such as that depicted in the OP, drivers are ripe to be in this "auto-pilot" mode. I, for one, want to set off alarms to shake them out of their trances. I want them to know I'm there up ahead, and care. I want to greatly reduce the possibility that they will remain completely oblivious to my presence, and possibly choose to attend to a distraction moments before overtaking me.

I will continue my response in reply to Robert's point.

Being out in traffic is inherently dangerous to some degree, whether you're on a bike, motorcycle, walking or in a car. There is no way to control everything; there will always be some small element of Russian Roulette, in addition to any danger we add for ourselves through our own miscalculations, indiscretions and narcolepsy episodes. IOW, even the perfect cyclist is not perfectly safe. For cyclists, this gnawing lack of control is most undeniable when considering hits from behind. The thought that 'inadvertent drift' collisions are 'easily preventable' with adjustments in lane positioning, etc. has no basis in reality, imo. It's an emotional (albeit hopeful) reaction to a less than perfect reality. HH, do you have any data to suggest that cyclists are more likely to be drifted into while riding on a shoulder than straight-up hit from behind while riding in the travel lane? I can cite plenty examples of each.

Robert
I presume you do not play true Russian Roulette for the same reasons that I do not: the ratio of bullets to chambers is too low (1 to 6). All I'm talking about is a technique to increase the number of chambers with respect to inadvertent drift types of crashes.

No, I don't have any data "to suggest that cyclists are more likely to be drifted into while riding on a shoulder than straight-up hit from behind while riding in the travel lane". But such data would be irrelevant here, because the choices are not (simply):
Ride in the shoulder
Ride in the laneThe choices are:
Ride in the shoulder and take your chances.
Ride in the shoulder, but monitoring traffic approaching from behind, counting on being able to bail successfully if the driver drifts in the last moment.
Ride in the lane, but monitoring traffic approaching from behind, and adjusting laterally as needed, perhaps moving left to increase conspicuity and verify awareness while they are still a relatively long way back, and/or by moving right to facilitate passing later, perhaps riding in the shoulder or even bailing into the dirt shoulder if required.No study has researched this, I'm sure. But, to someone with some understanding of how inattentional blindness works, it should seem pretty obvious that (3) puts a lot more chambers in the virtual Russian Roulette gun.

By the way, I think (2) doesn't work nearly as well, perhaps no better than (1), because the start of the drift might literally be moments before a driver overtakes a cyclist, before which there is no clue about whether he has noticed you or not: not enough time to bail. That's why the point with (3) is to try to determine as early as possible whether the driver has noticed the cyclist or not.

Edit: I expanded on this in #131

[Helmet Head]

If it was two Honda Civics I'd move to the right of the line, because the roadway is wide enough for 2 Civics and 1 bike.

But, if it was two F-250 pickups (possibly with extra wide mirror, or towing a trailer), I'd take the lane and indicate to the overtaking driver that he needed to wait until it was clear. When the oncoming traffic clears, I'd move right and wave the overtaking vehicle around.

I've found this works nearly all the time, and most drivers (especially the elderly) are comfortable with me taking charge of what would otherwise be an ambiguous driving situation.
:beer:

I too take into account the width of approaching vehicles (oncoming as well as behind, but mostly from behind) in terms of deciding how to position myself.

[Bekologist]

First, it's not about "seeing", it's about "noticing", "taking notice", and/or "being aware of". This is not a point of semantics.

That post was NOT arguing semantics? :roflmao: head, if you think a bike is more noticable than a bus, your logic is fatally flawed.

additionally, the use of high vis clothing makes cyclists NOTICED despite their lane position, from a half mile away.

Why do you not recommend in this thread to also use visibility/cognification enhancing aids that the body of bicycling suggests and recommends, vis clothing/safety vests and daytime visible blinkies?

You continually fall back on arguing semantics about cognification and blindness. are you sure you have a firm grasp on this, or are you simply echoing your fear of traffic when you post this stuff?

[SSP]

This gets at the heart of the matter.[LIST]
Have you read anything about inattentional blindness and how it works?
Have you read this article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html), for example?

The phenomenon is real, but you have exactly zero evidence that your riding techniques do anything to increase conspicuity or cyclists' safety.

At the distances we're talking about, the angular difference between a cyclist near the edge of the roadway, vs. in the roadway, is negligible.

And, as others have pointed out, riding with high-viz clothing and flashers, in a predictable fashion, is the technique recommended by most experts in the field.

[SSP]

If you really think about this, I think you will finally come to realize that there is no way, on average, that a cyclist on the other side of the clear edge of a driver's intended path would be subconsciously evaluated anywhere near as relevant as would the cyclist clearly in the driver's intended path. The latter is very likely, sooner or later, to set off all kinds of alarms. The former is likely to never set off any alarms. And that's the problem with respect to setting up the inadvertent drift scenario.

To emphasize the need to "set of alarms", consider this excerpt from the above cited article:

On a nearly empty flat/straight rural road such as that depicted in the OP, drivers are ripe to be in this "auto-pilot" mode. I, for one, want to set off alarms to shake them out of their trances. I want them to know I'm there up ahead, and care. I want to greatly reduce the possibility that they will remain completely oblivious to my presence, and possibly choose to attend to a distraction moments before overtaking me.

Perhaps you should weave back and forth as if you were drunk...that would certainly set off some "alarms" and increase both your "conspicuity" and your "relevance" to the overtaking drivers.

Plus, by weaving back and forth across the road, you'd get in more training miles on each ride.

[Helmet Head]

Perhaps you should weave back and forth as if you were drunk...that would certainly set off some "alarms" and increase both your "conspicuity" and your "relevance" to the overtaking drivers.

Plus, by weaving back and forth across the road, you'd get in more training miles on each ride.
Now you're catching on.

Indeed, if I don't have confirmation (a slight slow down and/or slight lateral adjustment) that they have seen me despite my presence in their path when they are, say (this is an estimate ) 20-10 seconds back, one of the techniques I may use to try to shake them out of their trance is a zig and a zag (though more commonly I use a quick look back over my left shoulder followed by a 1-3 foot lateral move to the left, and/or a slow/stop arm signal - in the rare cases where that is required, that always is enough, in my experience).


This is an estimate because I never get out a stop watch and time this stuff in real time, so I don't really know what the timing is. The thing is, I "feel" how long I have before they reach me, and, more importantly, how long that is relative to the time it would take me to bail, should I have to do that. So there is some theoretical bail point (which has never been reached), and backing up from that the importance of having confirmation that I've been noticed gets lower and lower. That is, when they are still a half-mile back, it's not important at all that I don't yet have confirmation. But as they get closer and closer, it gets more and more important, and the more likely I'll start using some of these other techniques in order to achieve that confirmation if I don't get it from simply riding in a position up ahead that is clearly in their path, which is sufficient in the vast, vast majority of the cases.

[Helmet Head]

That post was NOT arguing semantics? :roflmao: head, if you think a bike is more noticable than a bus, your logic is fatally flawed.

additionally, the use of high vis clothing makes cyclists NOTICED despite their lane position, from a half mile away.

Why do you not recommend in this thread to also use visibility/cognification enhancing aids that the body of bicycling suggests and recommends, vis clothing/safety vests and daytime visible blinkies?

You continually fall back on arguing semantics about cognification and blindness. are you sure you have a firm grasp on this, or are you simply echoing your fear of traffic when you post this stuff?
Hi vis clothing may help, but only with sensory conspicuity, by definition. Also, these benefits of high vis clothing are relatively widely understood, and this is not controversial. So I don't see much point in touting the obvious. That's why I don't bother recommending it.

Here, the same questions apply that I asked of Allister.


Have you read anything about inattentional blindness and how it works?
Have you read this article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html), for example?
Do you understand and appreciate the difference between sensory conspicuity and cognitive conspicuity?
Do you understand and appreciate the crucial role that relevance often plays in determining whether someone notices something or not?It appears that you are only considering sensory conspicuity which implies the answers to all of these questions is no. If so, there is no way you could even begin to understand my argument, much less appreciate it. Your agreement or disagreement therefore cannot be meaningful.

[Helmet Head]

The phenomenon is real, but you have exactly zero evidence that your riding techniques do anything to increase conspicuity or cyclists' safety.

At the distances we're talking about, the angular difference between a cyclist near the edge of the roadway, vs. in the roadway, is negligible.

And, as others have pointed out, riding with high-viz clothing and flashers, in a predictable fashion, is the technique recommended by most experts in the field.
The angular difference is irrelevant. What matters is whether the cyclist is subconsciously perceived to be in the driver's intended path, or not.

At two miles back, it may not be discernable. I'm not even sure of that. But it doesn't matter, because that far back, even a giant boulder in the middle of the road is not yet very relevant. By the time the driver gets within range of where the cyclist potentially matters, his subconscious can clearly discern between a cyclist near the center of the road in the driver's intended path and a cyclist to the right of the shoulder or bike lane stripe, thus clearly outside of the driver's intended path. That's what matters with respect to the likelihood of whether or not "alarms will go off" set by the driver's subconscious to alert the conscious mind of a potential hazard.

[SSP]

The angular difference is irrelevant. What matters is whether the cyclist is subconsciously perceived to be in the driver's intended path, or not.

At two miles back, it may not be discernable. I'm not even sure of that. But it doesn't matter, because that far back, even a giant boulder in the middle of the road is not yet very relevant. By the time the driver gets within range of where the cyclist potentially matters, his subconscious can clearly discern between a cyclist near the center of the road in the driver's intended path and a cyclist to the right of the shoulder or bike lane stripe, thus clearly outside of the driver's intended path. That's what matters with respect to the likelihood of whether or not "alarms will go off" set by the driver's subconscious to alert the conscious mind of a potential hazard.

You have exactly zero evidence regarding subconscious alarms going off, and whether this in any way contributes to enhanced cycling safety.

[Helmet Head]

Being out in traffic is inherently dangerous to some degree, whether you're on a bike, motorcycle, walking or in a car. There is no way to control everything; there will always be some small element of Russian Roulette, in addition to any danger we add for ourselves through our own miscalculations, indiscretions and narcolepsy episodes. IOW, even the perfect cyclist is not perfectly safe. For cyclists, this gnawing lack of control is most undeniable when considering hits from behind. The thought that 'inadvertent drift' collisions are 'easily preventable' with adjustments in lane positioning, etc. has no basis in reality, imo. It's an emotional (albeit hopeful) reaction to a less than perfect reality. HH, do you have any data to suggest that cyclists are more likely to be drifted into while riding on a shoulder than straight-up hit from behind while riding in the travel lane? I can cite plenty examples of each.

Robert

I presume you do not play true Russian Roulette for the same reasons that I do not: the ratio of bullets to chambers is too low (1 to 6). All I'm talking about is a technique to increase the number of chambers with respect to inadvertent drift types of crashes.

No, I don't have any data "to suggest that cyclists are more likely to be drifted into while riding on a shoulder than straight-up hit from behind while riding in the travel lane". But such data would be irrelevant here, because the choices are not (simply):
Ride in the shoulder
Ride in the laneThe choices are:
Ride in the shoulder and take your chances.
Ride in the shoulder, but monitoring traffic approaching from behind, counting on being able to bail successfully if the driver drifts in the last moment.
Ride in the lane, but monitoring traffic approaching from behind, and adjusting laterally as needed, perhaps moving left to increase conspicuity and verify awareness while they are still a relatively long way back, and/or by moving right to facilitate passing later, perhaps riding in the shoulder or even bailing into the dirt shoulder if required.No study has researched this, I'm sure. But, to someone with some understanding of how inattentional blindness works, it should seem pretty obvious that (3) puts a lot more chambers in the virtual Russian Roulette gun.

By the way, I think (2) doesn't work nearly as well, perhaps no better than (1), because the start of the drift might literally be moments before a driver overtakes a cyclist, before which there is no clue about whether he has noticed you or not: not enough time to bail. That's why the point with (3) is to try to determine as early as possible whether the driver has noticed the cyclist or not.
To expand on this... we can make the list of choices more complete and clarify a few things.

The choices a cyclist has about how to ride on a road like that depicted in the photo in the OP can be summarized as follows.
Ride in the shoulder, and take your chances (typical style employed by most cyclists not using mirrors, including many who have mirrors but don't really use them in this context).
Ride in the shoulder or near the stripe, but monitoring traffic approaching from behind with a mirror, counting on being able to bail successfully if the driver drifts in the last moment (this is what SSP does, if I understand correctly).
Ride "centerish" (*) in the lane, and take your chances (no one I know advocates or employs this method).
Ride "centerish" in the lane, but monitoring traffic approaching from behind with a mirror, and adjusting laterally as needed, perhaps moving left to increase conspicuity and verify awareness while they are still a relatively long way back, and/or by moving right to facilitate passing later, perhaps riding in the shoulder or even bailing into the dirt shoulder if required (basically what I employ and advocate).Note that adding an additional item in the middle of the list changes the numbering. In particular, the approach I advocate was (3) and is now (4).

What I want to add is that although I firmly believe that (4) is vastly superior to the other approaches in terms of protecting a cyclist from the inadvertent drift type of crash, this is not the reason I employ or advocate (4). This is because "the number of chambers in the virtual Russian Roulette gun" is already quite reasonably high with (1). That is, you can easily spend your entire life riding in shoulder per (1) and you will almost certainly never get involved, much less killed, in an inadvertent drift type of crash, because those types of crashes are so rare. Not only does the driver have to be unaware of your presence as he is approaching you, but he also has to choose to attend to some kind of distraction and that has to lead to him drifting, all coinciding tragically moments before he overtakes you. All in all, it's not much of a risk to worry about having to avoid, though it does happen, as the story associated with clicking on the photo in the OP shows.

So, then,
Why do I use and advocate this method with such obsessive fervor?
And why do I put so much emphasis on this relatively insignificant reason to use (4), if there are other more significant reasons?
And what are these other more significant reasons anyway?These are excellent questions, if I may say so myself. Let's take (c) first.

The more significant reason to employ (4) (or (3) for that matter) rather than (1) or (2) has nothing to do with faster same direction traffic approaching from behind. The reason is that using it improves sight lines to and from you with respect to potential conflicts in front of you, which is particularly important during periods of no faster same direction traffic such as depicted in the photo in the OP. If there is a blind driveway to the right coming up, then you will see it sooner the further left you are riding out in the lane. And if there is an intersection coming up that you didn't notice yet, someone about to pull out of it is much more likely to notice you if you are out in the lane rather than in the shoulder. If you are habitually riding in the lane by default, then oncoming traffic that may potentially suddenly slow down to make a left turn into a driveway that you perhaps didn't even notice, or wouldn't have had you been riding in the shoulder, is more likely to notice you sooner, leaving you less likely to fall victim to a left cross. If there is a hazard in the shoulder, there is no need for you to merge left, because you're already there. And you are less likely encounter obstacles and debris out in the road because they tend to collect in the shoulder or bike lanes. These are the more important reasons to employ (4) rather than (1) or (2).

I will take (a) and (b) together. I think the more important reasons to use (4) are simply not compelling to most cyclists because most people feel it is too dangerous with respect to putting yourself at risk to getting hit from behind. This is why I emphasize the other aspect: that (1) and (2) actually put you at more risk with respect to from-behind traffic than does (4). I'm trying to defuse what I believe to be the reason that most people ignore or dismiss the more important reasons to use (4). That's why I advocate this reason with such fervor. That's why I put so much more emphasis on this reason than the dry and apparently less compelling, though more important, reasons.

I hope that makes sense.

(*) By the term "centerish" I mean between the left and tire tracks of where motor vehicles normally travel, usually with a bias towards the center. In other words, the space where motorcyclists normally ride.

[Helmet Head]

You have exactly zero evidence regarding subconscious alarms going off, and whether this in any way contributes to enhanced cycling safety.
I don't have incontrovertible proof that (4) (see my previous post) is safer than (1), but I do have evidence supporting this hypothesis, both theoretical and empirical, and I have been citing it post after post in this thread, and in countless others.

There is, however, exactly zero evidence that contradicts my hypothesis that (4) is significantly safer than (1).

Edit: Similarly, you have cited empirical evidence from your own experience supporting your contention that (2) (if that accurately depicts the style you use) is safer than (1).

[bmike]

http://bestanimations.com/Sports/Tennis/Tennis-05-june.gif

[SSP]

To expand on this... we can make the list of choices more complete and clarify a few things.

Splitting a few more hairs by posting yet another HH "Wall of Words", does very little to "clarify".

[Helmet Head]

http://bestanimations.com/Sports/Tennis/Tennis-05-june.gif
Flak with no substance. :rolleyes:

Splitting a few more hairs by posting yet another HH "Wall of Words", does very little to "clarify".
Flak with no substance. :rolleyes:

[SSP]

There is, however, exactly zero evidence that contradicts my hypothesis that (4) is significantly safer than (1).

I'll go with the opinions of noted cycling authorities (e.g., Robert Hurst), who regularly skewer you in these forums.

And with the collective wisdom of most forum members (representing hundreds of thousands of miles of cycling experience) who also view your "hypothesis" as unnecessary and inappropriate.

[Helmet Head]

I'll go with the opinions of noted cycling authorities (e.g., Robert Hurst), who regularly skewer you in these forums.

And with the collective wisdom of most forum members (representing hundreds of thousands of miles of cycling experience) who also view your "hypothesis" as unnecessary and inappropriate.
I consider it an honor that Hurst considers my posts worthy of skewering. He provides great value to this forum in that regard. And I agree with him more often than not, and usually correct/clarify accordingly.

That said, the fact that he sometimes "skewers" my posts (not me personally) in no way constitutes evidence contradicting this particular hypothesis of mine.

I will concede that the difficulty I'm having in convincing very many experienced cyclists regarding the validity of my hypothesis constitutes indirect evidence against it, and is worth considering (and I do). So maybe it's not quite right to say there is zero evidence contradicting it. But I can say that there is zero evidence directly contradicting it, because opinion alone, no matter the authority, does not constitute direct evidence. And then there are those who do see value in it.

Edit: There are other possible explanations for the difficulty I'm having in having my hypothesis accepted, other than it is invalid. First, note the difficulty the theory of evolution still has in getting acceptance over one hundred years after it was presented. Some people are determined to believe what they believe, and the perceived safety value of riding to the right is a difficult myth with which to compete (just as Creationism is a difficult myth with which evolution has to compete). Couple that with my combative style that tends to cause people to disagree with me no matter what I say, and my apparent difficulties to clearly convey my meaning at least from time to time, and you have what I believe to be much more compelling explanation for why my hypothesis has had difficulties achieving acceptance, rather than an inherent invalidity.

[joejack951]

I'll go with the opinions of noted cycling authorities (e.g., Robert Hurst), who regularly skewer you in these forums.

While Hurst does disagree with HH's approach to riding country roads, Hurst advocates basically the same thing for riding city roads. There are plenty of other noted cycling authorities who also advocate approaches very similar to HH's although none of them participate in this forum.

[bmike]

Flak with no substance. :rolleyes:


you're assuming i'm flakkin on you... awfully sensitive there, mr. head.
i was refering to the back and forth and back and forth that's going on here. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

you're assuming i'm flakkin on you... awfully sensitive there, mr. head.
i was refering to the back and forth and back and forth that's going on here. :rolleyes:
Sorry. I guess I am a bit sensitive.

But I feel I have taken my defense for my hypothesis to a new level in the last two large posts here.

[Speedo]

But I feel I have taken my defense for my hypothesis to a new level in the last two large posts here.

Maybe you should just admit your hypothesis is wrong and move on.

Speedo

[chipcom]

Sorry. I guess I am a bit sensitive.

But I feel I have taken my defense for my hypothesis to a new level in the last two large posts here.

Congrats, now your hypothesis is at the same level as the Titanic.

[RobertHurst]

While Hurst does disagree with HH's approach to riding country roads, Hurst advocates basically the same thing for riding city roads. There are plenty of other noted cycling authorities who also advocate approaches very similar to HH's although none of them participate in this forum.

City roads are a whole different ballgame. Obsessing on same-direction traffic and directing so much attention backward as HH advocates would be exceedingly foolish on city streets.

Robert

[Helmet Head]

City roads are a whole different ballgame. Obsessing on same-direction traffic and directing so much attention backward as HH advocates would be exceedingly foolish on city streets.

Robert

I'm skewered again! :love:

In general, the amount of attention directed backward I advocate is no more than that recommended in any driving, defensive driving, or motorcycle safety course: a glance in the mirror every few seconds. I also recommend paying attention to those who may be a threat from behind, just as defensive driving teaches to pay attention to tail-gaters. Similar techniques are used to get those behind to notice and back-off.

All I would add is that situational awareness to the rear is arguably more important for relatively slow moving drivers than for drivers operating at the normal speed of traffic at that time. Why? To increase the probability (it's all about adding chambers to the virtual Russian Roulette gun) of being able to avoid collisions such as the one discussed in this thread (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=333558).

[Helmet Head]

Maybe you should just admit your hypothesis is wrong and move on.

Speedo
Already addressed.


...

So, then,
Why do I use and advocate this method with such obsessive fervor?
And why do I put so much emphasis on this relatively insignificant reason to use (4), if there are other more significant reasons?
And what are these other more significant reasons anyway?These are excellent questions, if I may say so myself. Let's take (c) first.

The more significant reason to employ (4) (or (3) for that matter) rather than (1) or (2) has nothing to do with faster same direction traffic approaching from behind. The reason is that using it improves sight lines to and from you with respect to potential conflicts in front of you, which is particularly important during periods of no faster same direction traffic such as depicted in the photo in the OP. If there is a blind driveway to the right coming up, then you will see it sooner the further left you are riding out in the lane. And if there is an intersection coming up that you didn't notice yet, someone about to pull out of it is much more likely to notice you if you are out in the lane rather than in the shoulder. If you are habitually riding in the lane by default, then oncoming traffic that may potentially suddenly slow down to make a left turn into a driveway that you perhaps didn't even notice, or wouldn't have had you been riding in the shoulder, is more likely to notice you sooner, leaving you less likely to fall victim to a left cross. If there is a hazard in the shoulder, there is no need for you to merge left, because you're already there. And you are less likely encounter obstacles and debris out in the road because they tend to collect in the shoulder or bike lanes. These are the more important reasons to employ (4) rather than (1) or (2).

I will take (a) and (b) together. I think the more important reasons to use (4) are simply not compelling to most cyclists because most people feel it is too dangerous with respect to putting yourself at risk to getting hit from behind. This is why I emphasize the other aspect: that (1) and (2) actually put you at more risk with respect to from-behind traffic than does (4). I'm trying to defuse what I believe to be the reason that most people ignore or dismiss the more important reasons to use (4). That's why I advocate this reason with such fervor. That's why I put so much more emphasis on this reason than the dry and apparently less compelling, though more important, reasons.
...


There are other possible explanations for the difficulty I'm having in having my hypothesis accepted, other than it is invalid. First, note the difficulty the theory of evolution still has in getting acceptance over one hundred years after it was presented. Some people are determined to believe what they believe, and the perceived safety value of riding to the right is a difficult myth with which to compete (just as Creationism is a difficult myth with which evolution has to compete). Couple that with my combative style that tends to cause people to disagree with me no matter what I say, and my apparent difficulties to clearly convey my meaning at least from time to time, and you have what I believe to be a much more compelling explanation for why my hypothesis has had difficulties achieving acceptance, rather than an inherent invalidity.

[Allister]

I still don't understand why Helmet Head is so adverse to laying any blame whatsoever on the motorist that through his inattention collided with two cyclists that were riding perfectly legally, safely and predictably.

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.

So, if it's not the cyclist's fault for not riding in a way that 'grabs' the motorists attention, it's the road's fault for being 'inherently dangerous'. How about the possibility that there's just some seriously incompetent drivers out there?

[Allister]

This gets at the heart of the matter.
Have you read anything about inattentional blindness and how it works?
Have you read this article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html), for example?
Do you understand and appreciate the difference between sensory conspicuity and cognitive conspicuity?

'Inattentional' isn't even a word.

Do you understand and appreciate the crucial role that relevance often plays in determining whether someone notices something or not?When you say things like "the difference in visibility of a cyclist riding on the shoulder or in the lane is pretty negligible", and "If that driver ... didn't see the cyclists on the shoulder, it's unlikely IMO that he'd have seen them in the lane either", it appears that you are only considering sensory conspicuity and implies the answers to all of these questions is no. If so, there is no way you could even begin to understand my argument, much less appreciate it.

Obviously not. I don't even go into this much analysis for things that are actual risks, let alone minor one's like this 'unintended drift' that you think is such a problem.

Do as you wish, but if you're willing to take the time to read my posts and respond to them, then please also take the few minutes to read the essential backup material. Otherwise, we're talking in different languages.

I'm talking in English. What language are you speaking?

Now, you say: If that driver, ... didn't see the cyclists on the shoulder, it's unlikely IMO that he'd have seen them in the lane either.

First, it's not about "seeing", it's about "noticing", "taking notice", and/or "being aware of". This is not a point of semantics. The point of inattentional blindness is that one may subconsciously "see" something right in front of him, but never-the-less not process it consciously. The issue isn't about "seeing", but about whether the driver's subconscious processes the cyclists as being relevant to him, and, if so, when that happens and how relevant the cyclists are.

Funny how you used the term 'right in front of him' there. Isn't that where you recommend riding?

To emphasize the need to "set of alarms", consider this excerpt from the above cited article:

On a nearly empty flat/straight rural road such as that depicted in the OP, drivers are ripe to be in this "auto-pilot" mode. I, for one, want to set off alarms to shake them out of their trances. I want them to know I'm there up ahead, and care. I want to greatly reduce the possibility that they will remain completely oblivious to my presence, and possibly choose to attend to a distraction moments before overtaking me.


Good for you, but you're still missing the point that these cyclists were doing nothing wrong. It was entirely the driver's fault. None of your blathering will change that.

[Helmet Head]

I still don't understand why Helmet Head is so adverse to laying any blame whatsoever on the motorist that through his inattention collided with two cyclists that were riding perfectly legally, safely and predictably.



So, if it's not the cyclist's fault for not riding in a way that 'grabs' the motorists attention, it's the road's fault for being 'inherently dangerous'. How about the possibility that there's just some seriously incompetent drivers out there?
I'm not adverse to laying blame on the motorist. It's just seems pointless in the context of a bicycling advocacy and safety forum where I'd be preaching to the choir and nothing could be done about it.

I'm simply accepting (at least for now) the world for how it is, and trying to figure out the best way to ride a bicycle in it safely and efficiently. I think (4) accomplishes that much better than (1), for the reasons I've outlined multiple times. That this one particular motorist is responsible for this one particular crash has nothing to do with countless millions of drivers out there who are naturally and inevitably not paying attention and drifting from time to time. I don't know how to fix that. I'm not sure that it can be. Anyway, in the mean time, I want a technique/practice that reduces my chances of falling victim to such a crash, especially if for a bonus it helps me avoid even much more likely crashes (though on rural roads, crashes from behind are relatively likely).

[Allister]

I'm not adverse to laying blame on the motorist. It's just seems pointless in the context of a bicycling advocacy and safety forum where I'd be preaching to the choir and nothing could be done about it.

You're preaching to the choir with your 'advocacy' anyway. Why not just give up the preaching altogether? You might cop a little less 'flak'.

I'm simply accepting (at least for now) the world for how it is, and trying to figure out the best way to ride a bicycle in it safely and efficiently. I think (4) accomplishes that much better than (1), for the reasons I've outlined multiple times.

That's all well and good, but you forget that there's a lot of very experienced cyclists in this forum that have come to their own conclusions about how to ride safely. Your incessant 'preaching' that your's is the only way, or at least your refusal to admit that other ways may be just as safe is, frankly. annoying. The more you annoy people, the more they will just ignore you, as I have been doing until this thread, and will return to doing now.

[Helmet Head]

'Inattentional' isn't even a word.



Obviously not. I don't even go into this much analysis for things that are actual risks, let alone minor one's like this 'unintended drift' that you think is such a problem.



I'm talking in English. What language are you speaking?



Funny how you used the term 'right in front of him' there. Isn't that where you recommend riding?



Good for you, but you're still missing the point that these cyclists were doing nothing wrong. [i]It was entirely the driver's fault[\i]. None of your blathering will change that.
Inattentional blindness is a technical term in psychology, specifically in cognitive science. You probably won't find it in most standard English dictionaries.

Of course I'm using English. That literal interpretation is not the meaning of "language" I intended, obviously. You're resorting to really juvenile tactics, now. Two lawyers or two doctors might be talking in English, but that doesn't mean we can understand their "language", because we might be too unfamilar with too much of the terminology. Similarly, if you're not familiar with the terminology and basic cog sci concepts that my hypothesis is based on, and refuse to do the few minutes of reading required to get up to speed, you too will not be able to understand my "language".

Case in point: that you think it's funny that I used the term "right in front of him". That you find that funny again reveals your ignorance about the role of relevance in determining whether someone notices something, and how context relates to relevance. An interesting study had people waiting to be in interviewed in a cluttered waiting room, and the interview turned out to involve asking them what they remember noticing in the waiting room. Some people were much better than others, but everyone missed some very obvious stuff, and even insisted that stuff was not in the room. It's all about context and relevance. My hypothesis is based on the assumption that a potential obstruction up ahead in a driver's path is highly likely to be relevant to the driver, given the context. I confirm this empirically in my own riding and as a passenger with drivers. No evidence that I know of contradicts this assumption.

I agree the driver was totally at fault and the cyclists did nothing "wrong". The reality remains that they are the ones who were nearly killed and are now in back braces. None of your blathering will change that. Mine won't either, but at least it might help some other cyclist avoid a similar fate. Maybe even yours. I, for one, can hope.

[Helmet Head]

You're preaching to the choir with your 'advocacy' anyway. Why not just give up the preaching altogether? You might cop a little less 'flak'.



That's all well and good, but you forget that there's a lot of very experienced cyclists in this forum that have come to their own conclusions about how to ride safely. Your incessant 'preaching' that your's is the only way, or at least your refusal to admit that other ways may be just as safe is, frankly. annoying. The more you annoy people, the more they will just ignore you, as I have been doing until this thread, and will return to doing now.
That's par for the course for someone like me who is trying to convey something that contradicts the conclusions reached by others who think they know better. Who isn't going to be annoyed by someone who is showing their conclusions to be wrong? I can hope that not everyone will shut their minds simply because they are annoyed, and actually try to learn something, by either making the effort to show me why my conclusions are the ones that are wrong, or which premises of theirs lead them astray. This isn't quantum physics. It can't be true that (1) is significantly safer than (4) and (4) is significantly safer than (1). Only one, at most, can be true.

[JRA]

I use lateral positioning to (hopefully) make myself more conspicuous to motorists, and have done so for years.

But, if I had to base my behavior on the arguments Helmet Head has presented on this forum, I surely wouldn't.

Helmet Head, you have raised ridiculous arguments to an artform.

What you call "browbeating style" I call "addressing all points raised".Addressing all points raised IS browbeating. Whatareyou, twelve? You post something; others disagree; you whine that you're misunderstood. It's definately childish behaviour - repeated time and again. An exceptionally self-aware person might seek professional help.

Even though I might agree that lateral positioning might make a bicyclist more conspicuous, I'd never admit to agreeing with HH because, in all my years on the internet, HH is the biggest horse's patute I've ever run across.

But, to use one of HH's favorite dodges: no offense is intended.

HH, please keep on posting. It's only when you're posting that I feel right about providing links to humor-seeking friends (although some of John Forester's posts are pretty amusing, too).

[joejack951]

That's all well and good, but you forget that there's a lot of very experienced cyclists in this forum that have come to their own conclusions about how to ride safely. Your incessant 'preaching' that your's is the only way, or at least your refusal to admit that other ways may be just as safe is, frankly. annoying. The more you annoy people, the more they will just ignore you, as I have been doing until this thread, and will return to doing now.

There are also a lot of relatively inexperienced cyclists reading this forum (which I would have considered myself a few years ago) who are looking for a better way to ride and are willing to step out of their current comfort zone to try something different that sounds good on paper/screen. I used to have a tough time dealing with narrowing pavement widths, debris filled shoulders, and close passes on roads with narrow shoulders. I argued with HH early on about unnecessarily taking the lane but eventually found his advice (plus some stuff from Forester, Hurst, and a few others on BF's) to be spot on. I haven't regretted the change in my riding style (from a few feet from the right edge by default to center of the lane by default) since. I certainly have not regretted the fact that I can now confidently and safely ride on roads that I previously deemed unrideable by utilizing said techniques.

[Bekologist]

..and you can also receive a ticket for failing to recognize safe and adequate pavement to your right on which to ride, joe.

I am curious how this malarky of inattentional blindness plays out in wide lanes or on 4 lane roads..... is it attempt to control all lanes, the whole width of a wide lane, or can a cyclist EVER be reasonably safe in the face of overtaking traffic?