Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Where would you ride on this road?

... 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. ...

This particular assumption of yours may well be correct. Even so, it would not automatically follow that riding in the lane is safer than riding on the shoulder, because other factors are at work. Clearly, other factors do play a role in these incidents, because people still get hit while riding in the lane -- if your assumption were true and were the only thing at play here collisions involving lane-taking cyclists would be exceedingly rare compared to collisions involving cyclists on the shoulder, and with the limited information we have available we can see that this doesn't seem to be the case at all. So, other factors are at work; perhaps, for instance, that the cyclist in the lane, while more likely to be noticed, is also more likely to be struck if he/she does go unnoticed by an approaching driver.

In the end there doesn't appear to be any clear winning strategy for dealing with high speed same direction traffic on country roads. But that ain't the end of the world, because the statistical likelihood of getting run down out there really doesn't warrant any degree of obsession. Without a doubt, it can happen. It's rational to be nervous about it; it's rational to want to do everything possible to mitigate the risk; it's also rational to understand that there's not much a cyclist can do to really control these passing situations other than stay off the road entirely. I know people who have actually experienced such horrific hit-from-behind collisions and lived to tell about it. Imagine how it must feel to get back on the road after something like that. Even they exhibit far less obsession with passing traffic than I see from VCers on this forum. What's up with that?

Robert

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?

At least you agree that your incessant claims that you are correct in all things is annoying.

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.

Making that effort doesn't seem to be a particularly rewarding experience. Why would anyone bother?

what I find particularily amusing in head's masquerade about making the drivers slow down or change lanes to pass, (he admits earlier in this thread he justs feels better if he can do this) is his insistence he gets nothing but friendly waves and positive driver feedback while doing so....

that truly is a rib tickler.

This particular assumption of yours may well be correct. Even so, it would not automatically follow that riding in the lane is safer than riding on the shoulder, because other factors are at work. Clearly, other factors do play a role in these incidents, because people still get hit while riding in the lane -- if your assumption were true and were the only thing at play here collisions involving lane-taking cyclists would be exceedingly rare compared to collisions involving cyclists on the shoulder, and with the limited information we have available we can see that this doesn't seem to be the case at all. So, other factors are at work; perhaps, for instance, that the cyclist in the lane, while more likely to be noticed, is also more likely to be struck if he/she does go unnoticed by an approaching driver.

Well said.

In the end there doesn't appear to be any clear winning strategy for dealing with high speed same direction traffic on country roads. But that ain't the end of the world, because the statistical likelihood of getting run down out there really doesn't warrant any degree of obsession. Without a doubt, it can happen. It's rational to be nervous about it; it's rational to want to do everything possible to mitigate the risk; it's also rational to understand that there's not much a cyclist can do to really control these passing situations other than stay off the road entirely. I know people who have actually experienced such horrific hit-from-behind collisions and lived to tell about it. Imagine how it must feel to get back on the road after something like that. Even they exhibit far less obsession with passing traffic than I see from VCers on this forum. What's up with that?


I can only guess it's due to fear. There seems to be an underlying assumption in cycling circles that any collision with a motor vehicle results in serious injury if not death. I do know that I've been hit by cars several times (even occasionally due to no fault of my own), and that based on that small sample, death or disfigurement is unlikely. The worst I've come out with is a few scrapes and bruises, a damaged bike, and a new lesson learned.

I've even been hit from behind. There really was nothing I could've done about it (I didn't have a mirror at the time - I use one now, and it may have helped me see the danger coming, but I really can't say for sure). I was a bit shy of passing motorists for a few day afterwards, but I still use the exact same lane position on that road that I always have because I realise that a)it was a freak occurrence b)the road is not 'inherently dangerous' and c)claiming the lane on that road would be foolish, despite a shoulder not much wider than that seen in the OP. I soon got over my nervousness of passing traffic again.

One incident of a hit-from-behind in 12 years of city riding doesn't seem like a good reason to change the way I ride.

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.

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).
Flak and no content (with respect to addressing anything I've actually argued).

Fine, I'm browbeating. So what? This is an internet forum, not your dinner table. Get over it.

JRA DOES mention lateral positioning in the first sentence there, dontchya see, head?

:( its the same ol', same ol', head trick show.

welcome back, head :rolleyes:

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.

This particular assumption of yours may well be correct. Even so, it would not automatically follow that riding in the lane is safer than riding on the shoulder, because other factors are at work. Clearly, other factors do play a role in these incidents, because people still get hit while riding in the lane -- if your assumption were true and were the only thing at play here collisions involving lane-taking cyclists would be exceedingly rare compared to collisions involving cyclists on the shoulder, and with the limited information we have available we can see that this doesn't seem to be the case at all. So, other factors are at work; perhaps, for instance, that the cyclist in the lane, while more likely to be noticed, is also more likely to be struck if he/she does go unnoticed by an approaching driver.

My hypothesis is based on that assumption, but that's not all it's based on. And my hypothesis is not that (3) [see below for meaning of numeric references] is safer than (1), but that (4) is safer than (1). Much of the above paragraph seems to be addressing the issue of whether (3) is safer than (1), or whether there are other factors involved.


...
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).



In the end there doesn't appear to be any clear winning strategy for dealing with high speed same direction traffic on country roads. But that ain't the end of the world, because the statistical likelihood of getting run down out there really doesn't warrant any degree of obsession. Without a doubt, it can happen. It's rational to be nervous about it; it's rational to want to do everything possible to mitigate the risk; it's also rational to understand that there's not much a cyclist can do to really control these passing situations other than stay off the road entirely. I know people who have actually experienced such horrific hit-from-behind collisions and lived to tell about it. Imagine how it must feel to get back on the road after something like that. Even they exhibit far less obsession with passing traffic than I see from VCers on this forum. What's up with that?

Robert

(4) is a winning strategy not because it makes some significant difference in overall safety because it is superior for dealing with high speed same direction traffic in low traffic volume conditions, because like you and I have said, in the end there are a lot of chambers in that virtual Russian Roulette game anyway. (4) is a winning strategy because it makes a significant difference in overall safety because in general, employing it in all kind of traffic conditions, helps you be better prepared to attend to potential conflicts in front of you, which are more likely. I've explained this at length already, along with why I never-the-less emphasize the rearward attention aspect of it so much.



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 have yet to see that from you Serge.

I'm not annoyed with you, I'm entertained by you (in a "laughing at you" kind of way).
Flak and no content.

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.
Making that effort doesn't seem to be a particularly rewarding experience. Why would anyone bother?
It is disappointing that you and so many others apparently don't find learning something, by either making the effort to show me why my conclusions are the ones that are wrong, or by identifying which premises of yours lead you astray, to be a "particularly rewarding experience", and can't even get past the annoyance factor, as if etiquette in a forum like this should be comparable to that expected at a cocktail party.

Thankfully, not everyone shuts his mind like that...

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.

Well said.



I can only guess it's due to fear. There seems to be an underlying assumption in cycling circles that any collision with a motor vehicle results in serious injury if not death. I do know that I've been hit by cars several times (even occasionally due to no fault of my own), and that based on that small sample, death or disfigurement is unlikely. The worst I've come out with is a few scrapes and bruises, a damaged bike, and a new lesson learned.

I've even been hit from behind. There really was nothing I could've done about it (I didn't have a mirror at the time - I use one now, and it may have helped me see the danger coming, but I really can't say for sure). I was a bit shy of passing motorists for a few day afterwards, but I still use the exact same lane position on that road that I always have because I realise that a)it was a freak occurrence b)the road is not 'inherently dangerous' and c)claiming the lane on that road would be foolish, despite a shoulder not much wider than that seen in the OP. I soon got over my nervousness of passing traffic again.

One incident of a hit-from-behind in 12 years of city riding doesn't seem like a good reason to change the way I ride.
:eek:

You're freakin' lucky to be alive and you still don't see the value of using (4) over (1)? You're hopeless.

wow, you're bitter.


can you address this problem in YOUR fear of overtaking traffic and drift, head?

how does 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? Isn't a bicyclist riding in a lane sharing position in a wide lane subject to drift?

...the wall of words is back!!! :rolleyes:

If I'm hurting anyone's feelings, it's unintentional. If I am hurting yours, please let me know.

It is disappointing that you and so many others apparently don't find learning something, by either making the effort to show me why my conclusions are the ones that are wrong

Nobody is trying or able to prove your conclusions "wrong" nor can anybody come in here and declare you "right". This is an important distinction which I hope you will take to heart. In cycling techique, right and wrong are impossible to prove. Again, this idea of flak you bring up is born of your apparent acceptance of nothing short of everyone abandoning their opinions and experience and declaring your conclusions to be "right".

Especially when you've admitted yourself that you may be wrong. From post #62 (which, in my opinion should have ended this thread in a conciliatory manner): "I acknowledge I might be wrong."

You beg us to provide "evidence". Yet the "evidence" you post week after week on this forum is based on your own continually fabricated and modified (to suit your needs) theory and speculation much of which is highly questionable to those of us that read objectively. Then, you support your theory by posting a link to a single source of psychological theory www.visualexpert.com (http://www.visualexpert.com) which, to those of us who read objectively, find equally questionable. You have to realize that, despite a nice website, a lot of work and participation in a number of lawsuits, we're not all ready to blindly accept this theory of "inattentional blindness" like you are. I don't accept it. In my view, it excuses and gives an out to people that have failed in their responsibiltiy to pay adequate attention and have caused a tragedy. Similar to people that consciously choose to eat 20 Big Macs a day -- there will always be a respected, credentialied physician around to call their resultant obesity a "disease". By the way, Sigmund Freud did a lot of research and would have a nice website too.

Again, I'm not here to publicly declare you "right" or "wrong" as you desire. But I will (when I need the entertainment) call you out on your thin and questionable assertions and, more often, answer your plantive "why to I get so much flak?" cries. And again, I will most definitely call you out (not for entertainment) when you attempt to capitalize on the recent death or serious injury of one of my peers through the broadcast and advancing of your pet hypotheses and theories. Especially when you assign culpability to an innocent victim who was doing nothing wrong.

I've posted a perfectly plausible situation that calls your technique into question (post #88). Your response (post #92) skirted the situation by saying "the vigilant cyclist will not put himself in a situation where he is vulnerable like that" based on the impossibility of not noticing the approaching vehicle during the ample "five seconds of closing time" using your techniques. This is in direct conflict with your statement responding to Robert Hurst (post #143): "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". How many seconds is a "few"? Five maybe?

I assert that this is a flaw in your hypothesis. A speeding car on a typical rural highway with gentle hills and curves can approach from behind and close too quickly for a cyclist in the center of the lane to make his "every few seconds" glance in the mirror, notice the vehicle and clear the lane in time to avoid getting hit, especially if this speeding driver employs a very common and "natural" reaction of slamming on their brakes and jerking the wheel to the side. In this scenario, which doesn't even include the elements of drift or distraction, the vehicle would simply pass by had the cyclist been riding to the right of the fog line.

Further, you skirt my example by publishing a plain-and-simple untruth: "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."

You beg us for empirical evidence when none can exist.
You call people out by posting "all flak and no substance", a post in itself that has no substance or value.
You dare us to say "you know, you may be right" when you are unwilling to do the same.
You say you are posting for the benefit of inexperienced cyclists, yet employ a radical, alienating approach to advocacy.
You beg us to have an open mind when yours is clearly the most closed on this forum.

Yeah Serge, just "get over it," right?

What a hypocrite...

You are too kind.

... (4) is a winning strategy because it makes a significant difference in overall safety because in general, employing it in all kind of traffic conditions, helps you be better prepared to attend to potential conflicts in front of you, which are more likely. I've explained this at length already, along with why I never-the-less emphasize the rearward attention aspect of it so much.


Afraid I can't buy that either. If there are hazards in front of the rider, he/she will be better off with attention directed forward, even if they are riding on the right side. We only have so much attention to throw around and need to allocate it accordingly. Central lane position is not going to save the bacon of a cyclist who is obsessed with what is going on behind when the hazards are up front.

Robert

MSPD - If you're not going to accept the basic precepts that stem from many studies on inattentional blindness, then my whole hypothesis is not going to be compelling to you. We can certainly agree to disagree on that point.

Your #88 post does not call my technique into question, since the part of the technique I've addressed here applies to roads like that depicted in the photo in the OP - long, straight, great sight lines. Blind curves and crests are well-known exceptions for which any technique needs to adjust accordingly. Mine is no exception.

I assert that this is a flaw in your hypothesis. A speeding car on a typical rural highway with gentle hills and curves can approach from behind and close too quickly for a cyclist in the center of the lane to make his "every few seconds" glance in the mirror, notice the vehicle and clear the lane in time to avoid getting hit, especially if this speeding driver employs a very common and "natural" reaction of slamming on their brakes and jerking the wheel to the side. In this scenario, which doesn't even include the elements of drift or distraction, the vehicle would simply pass by had the cyclist been riding to the right of the fog line.
I will address this since you're so insistent. As I'm cresting a hill, I note how far back I can see. If the sight lines are long enough to allow me to clearly and safely continue in the lane on the downhill portion, then I will. If not, then not, and I move aside. This isn't some complicated calculation - it comes naturally. With some practice and experience, you just naturally feel how much time and space it takes high speed traffic to catch up with you, and you position yourself accordingly. I certainly would not move myself into a position where I felt it was unsafe or unreasonable to do so, and if my sight lines rearward are too short to be in the lane, then I wouldn't. A rule of thumb is to consider whether a given spot seem like a safe place to walk across the road, given that the road appeared to be clear as far as you could see in both directions. That is, if the sight lines are too short (due to curves, crests or whatever) to determine whether it's safe to walk across the road, then that's probably a place I wouldn't ride in the center of the lane either. It's a rule of thumb though, because while cycling you have several advantages over the pedestrian. First, you're moving away from the potential threat, the pedestrian is not. If it's an uphill where you're moving at 8 mph that advantage matters much less than if it's a downhill where you're moving at 40 mph. Second, if the reason the sight lines are short is because of a curve or crest that you've just gone through, and the sight lines prior to that were long, you have been able to clear it. The pedestrian crossing the road has no idea what's going on around that blind curve or crest. Anyway, all that goes into it, and, again, is beyond the scope of this thread. But if you want to start a thread on blind curves and crests, that sounds good to me.

Further, you skirt my example by publishing a plain-and-simple untruth: "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."

Plain-and-simple untruth? In the countless cases of inadvertent drift I've read about or observed, I've never seen it where sight lines are shortened, though of course there is intentional shoulder and bike lane encroaching on right hand curves, which is why I tend to ride further left on right hand curves (to increase the sight lines to me), and keep right on left curves. But, again, this all beside the point in this thread - which is about long straight roads with good sight lines and low traffic volumes where drivers are particularly prone to going on auto pilot.

But, again, none of this can make sense to you if you don't accept the basic precepts of inattentional blindness research (I choose that one website because I happen to think it provides a good clear summary, but what he says seems consistent with everything else I can find on the topic).

I have not assigned culpability to an innocent victim who did nothing wrong. Just because you did nothing wrong doesn't mean there was nothing you could have done to avoid it. A perhaps clear example of this is entering an intersection on a green without checking for red light runners. Going beyond merely "doing nothing wrong" is the essence of defensive driving, and is imperative for bicyclists in traffic who want to maximize their safety.

Afraid I can't buy that either. If there are hazards in front of the rider, he/she will be better off with attention directed forward, even if they are riding on the right side. We only have so much attention to throw around and need to allocate it accordingly. Central lane position is not going to save the bacon of a cyclist who is obsessed with what is going on behind when the hazards are up front.

Robert
I don't understand why you consider a rearward mirror glance, which literally takes a fraction of a second, every few seconds, to enhance one's situational awareness to the rear, to be a significant distraction from what's going on in front of the cyclist, especially when doing so allows the cyclist to spend more time centerish - even in a WOL or a road with a good shoulder or bike lane - where his sight lines and buffer zones are significantly improved with respect to noting and avoiding hazards in front sooner.

Like anything else, when new it can seem like a distraction. But once you get used it, you become "one" with the mirror. That microsecond glance to the rear becomes totally subconscious and effortless. You don't see motorcycle safety instructors encouraging motorcyclists who travel at 60 mph to remove the mirrors on their bikes. If they can learn to effectively manage rearward situational awareness with mirrors without significantly taking their attention from what's in front of them, why do you think cyclists traveling at 5-35 mph can't?

I think you're assuming maintaining situational awareness to the rear with a mirror takes more attention when riding a bike than when driving a car or riding a motorcycle, and/or that bicyclists require more attention to the front than do motorcyclists. In either case, I don't understand why, especially considering the much higher average speeds of motorcyclists.

how does a 'fraction of a second' allow you to determine if a driver is slowing or moving over in response to your lane position? It takes more than just a glance, head. remember, cars don't have brake lights on the front....

and again, can you address this problem in YOUR fear of overtaking traffic and drift, head?

how does this malarky of inattentional blindness play out in wide lanes or on 4 lane roads..... do you 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?

what about wide lanes that are wide enough to be shared, head? Isn't a bicyclist riding in a lane sharing position in a wide lane still subject to drift? it's the driver drifting, not the cyclist...


man, your theory has holes to sink the titantic, dude. give up trying to convince the bf world you have the awnser for lightly travelled, two lane rural roads, head. your obsessive fear of overtaking traffic on two lane rural roads is apparant to all who read this forum.

how does a 'fraction of a second' allow you to determine if a driver is slowing or moving over in response to your lane position? It takes more than just a glance, head. remember, cars don't have brake lights on the front....
If you had experience using a mirror, Bek, you would know. As best as I can explain it is that when you glance back once and note where they are, and then glance back again a few seconds later, with experience you can tell if they've moved laterally and/or changed speed relative to your speed (and if so, about how much). Since it's subconscious processing, it's difficult to explain in words. I'll try to pay more attention to exactly what's going on so I can explain it better, but for now it's the best I can do. It should be noted that if you took two snapshots in time and knew the positions of the cyclist and the motorist in both shots, you could mathematically calculate the motorist's relative speed, where they should have been in the second shot if they had slowed down, maintained speed, or sped up, and compare that to where they actually were. The subconscious mind can make these calculations for you. It's the same kind of subconscious calculations that allow us to hit baseballs with bats (and, more primitively, birds with rocks). It's also why it does take some practice.

Anyway, if our roles were reversed right now, I certainly wouldn't accept your words at face value, no matter how compelling they might sound. I would try it for myself. It does take from a few days to a few weeks to get comfortable and "one" with a mirror, depending on who you are.

The other thing is that you don't only use brief glances in the mirror. Just like you can establish when it's safe to take a good long look rearward by turning your head, you can establish when it's safe to take a longer scan rearward with your mirror.

On an empty straight/flat road with good sight lines like that depicted in the photo in the OP, while there is no one behind me, I might take a brief glance every 5 seconds or so, verifying that there is still no one behind me each time. Once I note someone is approaching, say 40 seconds back, then I might start glancing back a bit more frequently, say every 3 or 4 seconds, and maybe a slightly longer glance, looking for signs that they have noticed me (which are almost always quite obvious long before they have reached me, and gives me plenty of time to look back over my right shoulder, move aside to make it easier for them to pass, and then merge back after they have passed).

and again, can you address this problem in YOUR fear of overtaking traffic and drift, head?

how does this malarky of inattentional blindness play out in wide lanes or on 4 lane roads..... do you 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?

I don't quite understand the question. I will say that 4 lane roads tend to be busier, and less prone to the low traffic volumes where inattention/auto-pilot is most prevalent, though I do know of at least one case of inadvertent drift into a cyclist in a bike lane on such a road. I also will say that when there is a WOL and/or a decent shoulder or bike lane to ride in, I wouldn't call riding in the lane in the absence of fsdt as "controlling the lane". Controlling the lane only makes sense to me in the presence of other traffic, and certainly is applicable in narrow lanes. And since what I do (when it is safe and reasonable to do so) is move out of the way prior to them reaching me (but after I've established that they've taken notice of me), I'm not really controlling the lane when they are actually present and it matters.

Or perhaps you're asking about riding in the middle of the right lane on a relatively empty 4 lane road while, say, one car is approaching in the left lane? Actually, that's pretty typical on my commute. I usually just stay in my position and don't worry about the highly unlikely possibility that they will decide to change lanes or drift into my lane moments before they overtake me, if that's what you're getting at. Again, my real reason for riding centerish (regardless of how many lanes) is not out of concern from rearward threats, but to improve my sightlines and buffer zone with respect to avoiding hazards and conflicts in front of me.

what about wide lanes that are wide enough to be shared, head? Isn't a bicyclist riding in a lane sharing position in a wide lane still subject to drift? it's the driver drifting, not the cyclist...
Indeed, in the absence of fsdt, I ride "centerish" in WOLs too, maintaining rearward situational awareness by monitoring the rear with my mirror, and moving aside into the margin as required when safe and reasonable to do so. Whether there is a shoulder or bike lane stripe demarcating the margin of the WOL makes no difference to how I ride.


man, your theory has holes to sink the titantic, dude. give up trying to convince the bf world you have the awnser for lightly travelled, two lane rural roads, head. your obsessive fear of overtaking traffic on two lane rural roads is apparant to all who read this forum.
???

MSPD - If you're not going to accept the basic precepts that stem from many studies on inattentional blindness, then my whole hypothesis is not going to be compelling to you. We can certainly agree to disagree on that point.

Correct. I'm not going to accept them at this point. I won't rule out that some day I will be persuaded. Unlike you, I do have an open mind. But I'll wait until there is empirical evidence from multiple objective sources (read: those not earning their keep by testifying in courts) over the course of years that prove out the theory. Until that time I will not safeguard my life and health by blindly employing a radical theory insensitively and repeatedly broadcast on a web forum by an obsessive zealot that I feel is more hazardous than techniques employed by many more millions of cyclists in the mainstream of society.


As I'm cresting a hill, I note how far back I can see. If the sight lines are long enough to allow me to clearly and safely continue in the lane on the downhill portion, then I will. If not, then not, and I move aside. This isn't some complicated calculation - it comes naturally. With some practice and experience, you just naturally feel how much time and space it takes high speed traffic to catch up with you, and you position yourself accordingly.


I will agree with others that have stated this is inconsistent with your "fraction of a second glance" every few seconds. I agree with Robert when he says there is "only so much attention to go around". This applies to the example of the gentleman that was killed as he was turning left by the girl illegally passing on the left. Your argument in that case (during which you ABSOLUTELY assigned a level of culpability to the deceased) was partially that his "fraction of a second" glance back wasn't long enough to properly assess the situation behind (never mind that he was also scanning and negotiating two situations ahead).

Plain-and-simple untruth? In the countless cases of inadvertent drift I've read about or observed, I've never seen it where sight lines are shortened, though of course there is intentional shoulder and bike lane encroaching on right hand curves, which is why I tend to ride further left on right hand curves (to increase the sight lines to me), and keep right on left curves.

Yes, plain and simple. You apparently pay no attention to automobile accidents that don't involve cyclists. Every day, for dozens of reasons almost ALL of which include a degree of inattention or excessive speed, hundreds of vehicles drift outside of the apex of a curve and crash. I would bet a year's salary that I could sit on a lawn chair for ONE HOUR adjacent to ANY moderately traveled, gentle highway curve and videotape someone drifting over the fog line of that curve (or the center stripe for those curving right) within that hour. Hopefully it won't be that one-in-a-billion moment that there also happens to be a cyclist on the shoulder.

And this talk about "I was only talking about the road in the picture, not your example" just doesn't hold water, HH. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that your purpose for this whole poll and thread was to simply discuss the 100 yards of road visible in that photograph? It had nothing to do with supporting a larger advocacy purpose (including hilly and curved roads) AT ALL???


At this point, I've said everything I can say. I've "advocated" for common sense, not living your life according to the empty theory of the day, and sensitivity to completely innocent people that have had tragic and terrible things happen to them at the expense of people that are too cowardly, malicious or just plain evil to tend to their basic societal duties and care for their fellow man. Any further response I would have would just be restating the above and, dare I say, browbeating.

Bek, one more thing. Riding in the path of motorists approaching from behind in a WOL (whether the margins are demarcated with stripes or not, whether it's a 2-lane or 4-lane) can be no more dangerous than riding in the path of motorists in a NOL, where you have no choice, and countless cyclists do it safely every day. When you add the monitoring to the rear with a mirror, it becomes even safer than "already very safe".

MSPD - If you're not going to accept the basic precepts that stem from many studies on inattentional blindness, then my whole hypothesis is not going to be compelling to you. We can certainly agree to disagree on that point.

Your #88 post does not call my technique into question, since the part of the technique I've addressed here applies to roads like that depicted in the photo in the OP - long, straight, great sight lines. Blind curves and crests are well-known exceptions for which any technique needs to adjust accordingly. Mine is no exception.

And yet another example of the uselessness of your "theory".

As you so have many times in the past, now is the point in the thread where you play the "this theory only applies to ruralish roads with long sightlines, a low volume of 50 mph or less traffic, no driveways or intersections, daylight hours with no rain or fog, and a WOL or bike lane" card.

So, your "precious", upon which you waste countless hours and tens of thousands of words, applies to what? About 5% of cycling scenarios?

What a waste of bandwidth...:rolleyes:

And this talk about "I was only talking about the road in the picture, not your example" just doesn't hold water, HH. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that your purpose for this whole poll and thread was to simply discuss the 100 yards of road visible in that photograph? It had nothing to do with supporting a larger advocacy purpose (including hilly and curved roads) AT ALL???


I never said "I was only talking about the road in the picture, not your example". I am talking about roads like the one in the picture: long sight lines.

And yet another example of the uselessness of your "theory".

As you so have many times in the past, now is the point in the thread where you play the "this theory only applies to ruralish roads with long sightlines, a low volume of 50 mph or less traffic, no driveways or intersections, daylight hours with no rain or fog, and a WOL or bike lane" card.

So, your "precious", upon which you waste countless hours and tens of thousands of words, applies to what? About 5% of cycling scenarios?

What a waste of bandwidth...:rolleyes:
It applies to probably about 90% of the scenarios in which I ride. But it hardly ever rains in San Diego, much less heavy enough to significantly shorten sight lines. And road scenarios with tight enough curves or sharp enough crests to shorten sight lines enough to make it unsafe to ride centerish are relatively rare, but make up the bulk of the approximate 10% (could be much less).

Edit: In this context I'm accepting SSP's assumption that when keeping right due to short sight lines, I'm not using my technique. That's why I say 90%. But in #185 below I clarify that even then I'm really still using my technique, so it applies 100% of the time.

It applies to probably about 90% of the scenarios in which I ride. But it hardly ever rains in San Diego, much less heavy enough to significantly shorten sight lines. And road scenarios with tight enough curves or sharp enough crests to shorten sight lines enough to make it unsafe to ride centerish are relatively rare, but make up the bulk of the approximate 10% (could be much less).

Which illustrates yet another reason why so many question your "theory"....your lack of experience.

You ride on what would be considered by many to be "MUPs with the occasional car", and yet you post tens if not hundreds of thousands of words about the supposed importance and relevance of your precious theory.

In reality it applies to a very small proportion of typical cycling conditions (and, it's unproven and has been challenged by leading experts in the field).

But, hey, I'm sure that with your zealotry you'll keep plugging away at it...posting Wall after Wall of Words, blaming fellow cyclists for the accidents that killed or maimed them, and blaming everyone else for lacking the intelligence to appreciate your "precious". :rolleyes:

Which illustrates yet another reason why so many question your "theory"....your lack of experience.

You ride on what would be considered by many to be "MUPs with the occasional car", and yet you post tens if not hundreds of thousands of words about the supposed importance and relevance of your precious theory.

In reality it applies to a very small proportion of typical cycling conditions (and, it's unproven and has been challenged by leading experts in the field).

But, hey, I'm sure that with your zealotry you'll keep plugging away at it...posting Wall after Wall of Words, blaming fellow cyclists for the accidents that killed or maimed them, and blaming everyone else for lacking the intelligence to appreciate your "precious". :rolleyes:
Redding (pop. 104,295)
San Diego (pop 1,256,951)

:rolleyes:

Perhaps you're assuming that when faster traffic is present and I'm riding in the shoulder or bike lane or margin of a WOL that I'm not using my technique. But I consider that still using my technique in the 90% estimate. After all, even in those cases, I'm still maintaining rearward situational awareness by monitoring to the rear by glancing in my mirror every few seconds for long enough gaps to warrant moving left.

Actually, the technique works everywhere 100% of the time because it really boils down to this: if it's safe and reasonable to do so, take a centerish lane position because this improves sight lines to and from you, your conspicuity, improves buffer space, and thus makes you less vulnerable to conflicts ahead of you and approaching from behind.

In order to know whether being centerish is safe and reasonable, you need to maintain situational awareness, including rearward situational awareness, regardless of whether you are riding in the center or the margin, for whatever reason. Experienced mirror use is indispensable for achieving this.

If the presence of faster same direction traffic (fsdt), shortened sight lines due to a blind curve, crest or weather/light conditions, or some other factor makes it unsafe or unreasonable to ride centerish, then ride in the margin (assuming the margin is no less safe or reasonable than riding centerish for some reason, like the lane being too narrow to be safely shared). Of course. But if it is safe and reasonable to do so, take a centerish lane position.

That's it in a nutshell. That's why I would ride centerish in a situation similar to the one depicted in the photo in the OP.

Can anyone cite a reason for objecting to this?

Helmet Head: "Actually, the technique works everywhere 100% of the time because it really boils down to this: if it's safe and reasonable to do so, take a centerish lane position because this improves sight lines to and from you, your conspicuity, improves buffer space, and thus makes you less vulnerable to conflicts ahead of you and approaching from behind.

In order to know whether being centerish is safe and reasonable, you need to maintain situational awareness, including rearward situational awareness, regardless of whether you are riding in the center or the margin, for whatever reason. Experienced mirror use is indispensable for achieving this.

If the presence of faster same direction traffic (fsdt), shortened sight lines due to a blind curve, crest or weather/light conditions, or some other factor makes it unsafe or unreasonable to ride centerish, then ride in the margin (assuming the margin is no less safe or reasonable than riding centerish for some reason, like the lane being too narrow to be safely shared). Of course. But if it is safe and reasonable to do so, take a centerish lane position.

That's it in a nutshell. That's why I would ride centerish in a situation similar to the one depicted in the photo in the OP.

Can anyone cite a reason for objecting to this?"



I'll agree to that 100% and forever remain silent if you'll agree to silently allow everyone's definition of "safe and reasonable" to vary from, or even directly oppose your definition.

Deal?

I'll agree to that 100% and forever remain silent if you'll agree to silently allow everyone's definition of "safe and reasonable" to vary from, or even directly oppose your definition.

Deal?
Only if "safe and reasonable to ride in a centerish lane position" is acknowledged to be almost certainly true any time faster same direction traffic is not present and is not about to be present (within, say, the next 10 seconds). Note that this assumes the rearward situational awareness is good enough, probably due to good sight lines, to be able to determine that.

Deal?

Refer to post #186. No conditions. The offer/deal is simple: You either respect those whose opinions differ from yours or you don't. This is an opportunity to prove what kind of person you are.

In conditions where there are a lot of wide vehicles, particularly those that throw a lot of rocks or debris, like logging trucks - I have ridden in the gravel rather to reduce the impact of chaff on my back and in my eyes. Why is this not an option - or is that what option 1 suggests??

Refer to post #186. No conditions. The offer/deal is simple: You either respect those whose opinions differ from yours or you don't. This is an opportunity to prove what kind of person you are.
In #186, you are asking for this from me: agree to silently allow everyone's definition of "safe and reasonable" to vary from, or even directly oppose your definition.

Yet here you're conflating conveying respect for those whose opinions differ with meaning that one is to remain silent even though he disagrees.

One can respectfully disagree without being silent.

I'll agree to respect those whose opinions differ from mine. That's easy - I already do that. I certainly respect you, SSP, Blue Order, Robert and even Bek, Peter F. and ILTB. But I am not going to agree to remain silent when you guys say stuff that I believe is contrary to reason. I will state the reasons I disagree, as I always do. If that doesn't prove what kind of person I am, for better or worse, nothing does.

In conditions where there are a lot of wide vehicles, particularly those that throw a lot of rocks or debris, like logging trucks - I have ridden in the gravel rather to reduce the impact of chaff on my back and in my eyes. Why is this not an option - or is that what option 1 suggests??
That option was overlooked by the OP because he rides 700x23s. Sorry!

Assume you are stopped at the side of the road where that man is walking and are about to get back on your bike and continue riding away from the camera. Where would you most likely position yourself on this road?

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/aug/19cyclist3.jpg (http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/aug/19hurtbikers.htm)
The lane position I take on roads where I live varies so much with circumstances and time of day that a simple pic when there's no traffic tells me very little, my friend.

I prefer to ride comfortably to the left of the stripe by at least an arm's length. But I have no hard-and-fast rule, I prefer to be flexible.

I see no traffic on that road. No visible speed limit, either. Not enough info.

At the moment that pic was taken, I might hug the center line while screaming at the top of my lungs.

The distribution among the first 5 choices is almost even. Interesting.

That option was overlooked by the OP because he rides 700x23s. Sorry!
That doesn't leave you too many options.

That doesn't leave you too many options.
? Anything paved works for me.

Refer to post #186. No conditions. The offer/deal is simple: You either respect those whose opinions differ from yours or you don't. This is an opportunity to prove what kind of person you are.

With respect to his pet theories, HH is a zealot.

If you look through his posting history, you'll see he has posted literally hundreds of posts, and tens of thousands of words explaining it, defending it, refining it, whining that nobody understands it, etc., etc.

As a zealot and a True Believer, he is incapable of stopping.

He will claim to respect the opinions of others, but will continue to post Walls of Words to illustrate how killed and maimed cyclists could have prevented their injuries if only they had been aware of "inattentional blindness" and the HH theory of how to deal with it through proper lane positioning.

? Anything paved works for me.
Yesterday, I was coming home from the store, only two miles from home along a quiet back street paralleling a RR track. One of my favorite pleasant 7 minute jaunts.

But that day, the parallel 4 lane artery (on the other side of the RR track) was blocked due to RR construction at the crossing.

On my favorite route home from the store, there were about 50 cars backed up, not even knowing how to get to their destinations, having been detoured.

My road is so narrow that they hugged the road edge (no stripes with an uneven grass shoulder.) I tried passing on the left (as traffic was backed up for half a mile,) but oncoming traffic made it very difficult (they were also detoured.)

I passed on the right, on the bumpy, grassy shoulder on my MTB.

Beautiful.

Pavement is wonderful, but there's more to cycling than pavement, sometimes.

Yesterday, I was coming home from the store, only two miles from home along a quiet back street paralleling a RR track. One of my favorite pleasant 7 minute jaunts.

But that day, the parallel 4 lane artery (on the other side of the RR track) was blocked due to RR construction at the crossing.

On my favorite route home from the store, there were about 50 cars backed up, not even knowing how to get to their destinations, having been detoured.

My road is so narrow that they hugged the road edge (no stripes with an uneven grass shoulder.) I tried passing on the left (as traffic was backed up for half a mile,) but oncoming traffic made it very difficult (they were also detoured.)

I passed on the right, on the bumpy, grassy shoulder on my MTB.

Beautiful.

Pavement is wonderful, but there's more to cycling than pavement, sometimes.
Actually, I'm on the verge of adding a cyclocross bike to my stable, though not for those reasons. I've honestly never enountered a need to go "off road" in order to improve my ability to get somewhere. Besides, even on 700x23s I can ride off the pavement if I really have to. Actually, I did once ride on an unpaved road on a recreational ride.

With respect to his pet theories, HH is a zealot.

If you look through his posting history, you'll see he has posted literally hundreds of posts, and tens of thousands of words explaining it, defending it, refining it, whining that nobody understands it, etc., etc.

As a zealot and a True Believer, he is incapable of stopping.

He will claim to respect the opinions of others, but will continue to post Walls of Words to illustrate how killed and maimed cyclists could have prevented their injuries if only they had been aware of "inattentional blindness" and the HH theory of how to deal with it through proper lane positioning.
My goal is to find a way to present it such that no one can reasonably object to it.
It's very difficult to make it comprehensive and yet clear and succinct.

:eek:

You're freakin' lucky to be alive and you still don't see the value of using (4) over (1)? You're hopeless.

Thankyou for your concern, but you clearly are making assumptions about my skill level and experience of riding on the road that are simply incorrect.

How much exerience do you think I have on the road? Do you really think you're the only one around here that can make valid decisions on lane position? Get over yourself.

I think you're assuming maintaining situational awareness to the rear with a mirror takes more attention when riding a bike than when driving a car or riding a motorcycle, and/or that bicyclists require more attention to the front than do motorcyclists.

It does if you're going to have to make a decision regarding your lane position for every single vehicle that passes you, something not required if you're travelling at the same speed as the traffic.

In either case, I don't understand why, especially considering the much higher average speeds of motorcyclists.

It's exactly that higher speed that requires less rearward attention. Have you ever actually driven a motor vehicle? They're really quite different to bicycles.

My goal is to find a way to present it such that no one can reasonably object to it.

LOL. Good luck with that. Gotta admire your optimism though.

My goal is to find a way to present it such that no one can reasonably object to it.

Whether you succeed or not, what's next? I'm serious when I ask. Are there any other techniques or theories in the works?

Actually, I'm on the verge of adding a cyclocross bike to my stable, though not for those reasons. I've honestly never enountered a need to go "off road" in order to improve my ability to get somewhere. Besides, even on 700x23s I can ride off the pavement if I really have to. Actually, I did once ride on an unpaved road on a recreational ride.
That's really ok with me, I support your personal preferences.

All I'm saying is that, even though Helmet Head is a purist in the sense that he wants the road like any other, he should allow himself more options than strict adherence to motorist-like behavior.

If we ride as if we belong, same as motorists, we've won a major battle. This I do, "In your face," so to speak. Let motorists take the initiative to pass me, not me moving over to "help."

But if we forget our versatility as cyclists, we've lost a battle. In fact, my timidity to ride off the designated pavement has given me pause to consider that I might be suffering from the fear of non-conformism to vehicular principles. Yet, as a child, I rode both on and off the road, whatever seemed appropriate, and I never had the slightest inkling that I "didn't belong."

I just rode there on my bike (mostly in the street with cars.)

As cyclists, we should support all the freedoms cycling can offer: on road, off-road, whatever. As long as we don't sell ourselves short.

Universalism?

If you had experience using a mirror, Bek, you would know. As best as I can explain it is blah blah blah

what makes you think I DON'T use a mirror on rides out of town? I most certainly do, head. I began using one for touring over 20 years ago.

even on 700x23s I can ride off the pavement if I really have to. Actually, I did once ride on an unpaved road on a recreational ride.

once? get some experience under your belts, head.

I cannot believe you insist you have to slow every overtaking car down or get them to change lane position for you. talk about nervous nellie.....


head, you might think you're preaching some salvation, but you're really just showing your fear of empty, country roads with good sight lines. :roflmao:

sorry, but it's a bit of a stretch. you DO amuse the forum with your fear of near vacant country roads with good sightlines, however.

where would you ride on THIS road?

What a waste of nature, doubling the difficulty in crossing the road for wildlife, doubling the ugliness.

Well the entire width of the pavement seems in good condition and flat, so I would ride MOSTLY on the line. I like the line because I like one eye to be roving to nature and the other eye to look to the line to keep me in line.

However, where I'm from, this type of road would be infested with a bunch of hoakies that don't know the rules of the road and cyclist ROW so when nearing intersections on flats, I would look behind me and then align myself somewhere to the left of the line (the right tire track not being visible or anything).

On a tough uphill, I'd probably stay farther right, in case I go into "valseuse" mode and need for pavement.

On a downhill, I will assess rear clearance and then take near center of lane, depending on length of downhill, I will keep an eye out for nearing vehicles and their speed of approach.

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!)

I love those thick lines for exactly that reason. In addition, it gives me an impeccably straight predictable line for motorists to assess me by. To me there is nothing worse than a weaving cyclist!!!! From the motorist's understanding of the cyclist, I think it's generally easier to think: "this cyclist is riding the line" whereas, if not on the line, there is no indication to the motorist if the cyclist is on a on a "slow weave" or "distracted" or "preparing for a turn". And as the poll demonstrates, cyclists (on this forum anyway) seem to choose different locations to ride, but I suspect in the general population, right of the line would be more common.

Still, the line is also good training for heavy traffic to learn to keep within a 4" width, it allows you to safely negotiate motorists at much closer range and still feel confident. Ever watch that episode of Fear Factor where the safety lined cyclists had to make their way between to high buildings on a skinny beam? I'll admit their major challenge was getting enough speed, but still, they all did pretty horribly ;)