Where would you ride on this road?

[tallard]

I'm with you joejack. ... just too many holes, cracks, objects, squirrels, whatever out there waiting to try and dump me onto the pavement."

Oh that's too funny, it reminded me of my trip in Prince Edward Island, I was fully loaded riding some trail, I think it may have been an old train track, anyway I was looking around enjoying the "non" scenery, when I felt something hot bounce off my foot, it scampered off pretty fast, but I'd say it was a rat I somehow surprised, ooh what a gross feeling!!!

Speaking of old train tracks, on the Canada Trail, I just get a real kick at folks who drive their cars there with their cycles loaded on the roof, done their helmets and have themselves a safe little non exertion cycle. NO CARS, NO TURNS, NO HILLS. What exactly are these cyclists protecting their heads from, I'd say bird droppings is about as dangerous as it gets there!!! :roflmao:

[tallard]

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

oh thanks, I'd forgotten that one in my post :) If my visibility is far, I'll even to the eyes closed and arms spread thing like in City of Angels. Well ok, I know she died there, but that's because she didn't choose the right location for blindman driving practice!

[tallard]

... 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.)

oooooh, that's one of my biggest pet peeves is motorists with fear of the left! Anytime I encounter motorists to the right of center of their lane I give them really dirty looks and shout at them to get their act together! I need on only a couple of inches wider than my MTB handlebars clearance to be happy, but don't mess with those inches, I have zero tolerance to that:D

[MSPD]

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.

SSP, I recognize his history. In the post to which I offered "the deal", he opened himself a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge that "safe and reasonable" are IMPOSSIBLE to empirically define and hinted at the reality that "safe and reasonable" can legitimately vary from rider to rider.

I called him out to verify his seemingly HUMAN and conciliatory tone. It would have been a good way to end the relentless thread which does nothing to advance safety and/or advocacy for anything. I was asking him to decide if he is an advocate or a dictator of his way.

I didn't ask him to stop posting his opinion strongly and in a way that was seemingly irrefutable. I, however, asked him to post, let others speak their mind, and respect people enough to JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES. This, in contrast to the dissection and smashing down of each and every point of each and every post that isn't directly in concert with his own view. Respect vs. disrespect. Advocacy vs. dictatorship.

His response and refusal to acknowledge reality and even pledge respect for others by promising to no longer relentlessly dissect, trample upon and shout down others' perfectly legitimate advocacy (the wall of words, I suppose) sealed my opinion of the man in stone. His words have no meaning and he deserves no respect.

Up until now, because it's how I operate, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I held to the feeling that he truly wants to help cyclists, that he is concerned about safety and that he could be a true advocate.

It is now abundantly clear that he is not an advocate, he is that dictator. I would challenge that he no longer belongs in this forum. This is about safety and advocacy. This is about providing a wealth and DIVERSITY of DATA to enable people to make life-protecting decisions IN THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTS. By his own words, his mission is neither safety or advocacy. It is to speak, speak loudly, and speak repeatedly until he is declared Right.

"My goal is to present it so that nobody can reasonably object to it".

He speaks as an authority, using smoke, mirrors and a snake oil sales approach. He appears to do nothing in life to advance cyclist safety other than type words loudly and repeatedly into an internet forum. He has no credibility any more. I would implore newer cyclists to avoid his hollow rhetoric. Or at least challenge each post with: "PROVIDE THE DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT" and his own narrow cycling experience does not count as data. Nor do some untested theories of a guy on a website. Nor do some theories that a guy writes about in a book. Nor does the account of a fatal accident in the newspaper. And most importantly, nor does taking the words of the PERPETRATOR at face value (the entire premise of "inattentional blindness" to which there has been ZERO comprehensive, multienvironment, controlled applied research in a cycling environment). INSIST ON DATA. He demands that we put our safety and life blindly into the hands of his techniquest, theories, speculation and hypotheses. With no data to support their righteousness.

Some of his techniques have merit. But his approach and lack of credibility cause me to want to AVOID those techniques rather than adopt them. His approach and lack of credentials, empirical INDEPENDENT research and lack of data drowns out the information that could help cyclists choose life-protecting techniques. He is hurtful to safety and advocacy.

[rajman]

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.

It depends a lot on which city you are in, Calgary for example offers a lot of shortcuts to those who can climb up/charge down muddy hillsides, and in fact many suburban neighbourhoods are surrounded by 30-40ft high earth berms (future 'transit' corridors - I'm not holding my breath), which are best overcome by mountain bikes (I've had to walk my hybrid up several of these when I was trying to escape the city for long rides).

Even without rugged terrain, there are a lot of dirt/gravel trails that connect various neighbourhoods, that I have done on 700x23s in my youth (now I generally ride 700x32/35 or 26x1.3/1.5). The ability to travel in straight lines is often a great advantage over circuitous routes, in my experience.

Last week I was at my cottage (in the Laurentians north of Montreal), and was puzzled to see people riding racing bikes on the road (fast, no shoulder, steep sides, hills and turns) when there is an amazing railway trail network connecting various towns and lakes, going for hundreds of kilometers. Most of this network would be quite accessible for a racing bike with wider tires - I saw mostly hybrids and MTB's though. It seems like the CX option would be ideal for this type of terrain.

I think you'll enjoy this type of riding if you try it out...

[Helmet Head]

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.
Why do you think I'm making ANY assumptions about your skill level and experience of riding on the road? It's very interesting that you think I'm doing that.

You're some guy on the internet, I have no idea how much skill and experience you have, just as you have no idea how much I have. But I can tell you this, I know dozens of cyclists with decades of all kinds of cycling experiences and extraordinary biking skills who do really scary stuff in traffic. They're the ones who like to emphasize how sometimes stuff happens and there is nothing you can do about it, and don't seem very interested in talking about whether or not there was something you could have done about it if you roll back the clock 30-45 seconds prior to the collision, and analyze what happened, and why.

In one classic conversation with such a guy (state racing champion, toured all over the world, etc.), he was telling me about why his wife wasn't riding due to an injured shoulder. I asked how it happened, and he told me they were on a residential street near their house when some ahole suddenly opened the door of his Ford F-250 4x4 pickup truck, knocking her down, etc. I empathized, and then made a comment about why it's important to never ride in a door zone. Get this. He insisted she was not in the door zone. It was a personal conversation, not an internet forum, so I backed off. But the point is here was a highly skilled and experienced cyclist who was not even willing to consider that maybe an adjustment to the way he and his wife ride could have prevented her from being affected at all, much less injured, in a crash like this, ever. His mind refused to go there. "The ahole guy in the truck was 100% at fault, and there was nothing that could have been done about it, period. You weren't there, you don't know. End of Story." A basic dooring! This is cycling safety 101. It was astonishing.

Anyway, I've seen the "do you know how much skill and experience I have?" blinders in person, and I've certainly seen them on this forum. Experience and skill, if anything, makes people less likely to consider what others are saying. The folks with whom I've probably had the most influence here, like JoeJack, were relatively inexperienced. So their minds were not as closed as yours apparently is.

[SirMike1983]

I'd go by in the fogstripe region.

If there was no nearby car traffic I'd go a little further into the lane to give the pedestrian more space.

[Helmet Head]

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.
Not really. At any given point, either faster same direction traffic is present and margin space is available for you to ride off to the side, or you're riding in a centerish lane position despite the margin space available because there is no other traffic in your direction, or you're riding in a centerish lane position despite the presence of faster motor traffic behind you because the lane is too narrow to share or you're preparing for a left turn or something.

In the first case, faster same direction traffic is present and margin space is available for you to ride off to the side, you're mostly monitoring forward, but take an occasional mirror glance rearward to see if a significantly long gap is coming.

In the second case, you're riding in a centerish lane position despite the margin space available because there is no other traffic in your direction, you're mostly monitoring forward, but take an occasional mirror glance rearward to see if any faster traffic is approaching.

In the third case, you're riding in a centerish lane position despite the presence of faster motor traffic behind you because the lane is too narrow to share or you're preparing for a left turn or something, you're mostly monitoring ahead for changing conditions, but take an occasional mirror glance rearward to monitor the status of the traffic behind you.

I learned to drive in a 1971 VW bus. The way I use my mirror on my bike is very simiilar to how I used the mirrors in that vehicle, which was relatively slow moving any time there was any kind of significant grade.

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.
Yes, I've been driving for over 30 years now. Like I said above, mirror usage in a slow moving motor vehicle is comparable to mirror usage on a bicycle. Other reminiscent experiences besides the VW bus including driving rented moving vans, and motor scooters.

[u1st]

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

Actually, what's interesting is that at least 83 out of 117 respondents would ride to the right of the right tire track. Could be more, but "near the right tire track" is kind of ambiguous and could go either way (my guess would be to the right, though).

I'm interested in knowing how you would interpret these results. To me, it looks like most are staying as far right as they feel is practicable and not taking up more room than they feel is necessary.

[Bekologist]

You're some guy on the internet, I have no idea how much skill and experience you have, just as you have no idea how much I have.....

The folks with whom I've probably had the most influence here, like JoeJack, were relatively inexperienced. So their minds were not as closed as yours apparently is.

yeah, and now joe parrots YOUR inexperience in this forum...blathering on about 'trust but verify' nonsense and other head pearls of inexperience masquerading as bicycling safety tenents....

head, give it up. your fear of overtaking traffic on lightly travelled, country roads with good sightlines is a chuckle to all of us that actually ride those types of roads regularily.

you've got some good advice, 'keep an eye out behind, use lane positioning for safety' but really step overboard when you insist you need to get EVERY driver to slow down or change lanes to pass- even on roads with 12 foot shoulders... remember the 12 foot shoulders with logging trucks fiasco from last year?


just stop. your fear of overtaking traffic on near empty country roads with good sightlines is an exhibition of your fear of traffic and your nervous nellie tendencies. armchair rider..... quit 'assuming' you 'know best'- the cycling community on this forum is tired of your diatribe.

[Helmet Head]

Whether you succeed or not, what's next? I'm serious when I ask. Are there any other techniques or theories in the works?
No, my main gripe with cyclists, besides the obvious scofflaw attitude, is riding in the margins far, far too often. This appears to be true for even the highly skilled and experienced cyclists, including many vehicular cyclists. There is a distinct lack of appreciation for the advantages of riding further left much of the time, and how maintaining rearward situational awareness using a mirror ties in with that. If I can convey this, I am confident everything else becomes obvious and falls into place.

[Helmet Head]

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?
Oh, I'm with you on that. Please don't think that I'm one of these Nazis who thinks cyclists ONLY belong on roads behaving as drivers. Bike paths, sidewalk shortcuts, cutting through parking lots, etc., are all in the bag for me. My thing is IF you're on the road, THEN you should behave as a driver of a vehicle.

[Helmet 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.....

I don't slow EVERY overtaking car down, Bek.

Only EVERY overtaking car that is the first to arrive from behind after a significantly long gap.

When a stream of traffic is overtaking me while I'm riding in the margin of a WOL (whether it's stripe-demarcated as a bike lane or shoulder or not), I don't slow every one down. :rolleyes:

[SirMike1983]

Actually, what's interesting is that at least 83 out of 117 respondents would ride to the right of the right tire track. Could be more, but "near the right tire track" is kind of ambiguous and could go either way (my guess would be to the right, though).

I'm interested in knowing how you would interpret these results. To me, it looks like most are staying as far right as they feel is practicable and not taking up more room than they feel is necessary.

Exactly what my approach was- I'd give the guy walking some space while trying to stay toward the right.

[Helmet Head]

SSP, I recognize his history. In the post to which I offered "the deal", he opened himself a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge that "safe and reasonable" are IMPOSSIBLE to empirically define and hinted at the reality that "safe and reasonable" can legitimately vary from rider to rider.

I called him out to verify his seemingly HUMAN and conciliatory tone. It would have been a good way to end the relentless thread which does nothing to advance safety and/or advocacy for anything. I was asking him to decide if he is an advocate or a dictator of his way.

I didn't ask him to stop posting his opinion strongly and in a way that was seemingly irrefutable. I, however, asked him to post, let others speak their mind, and respect people enough to JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES. This, in contrast to the dissection and smashing down of each and every point of each and every post that isn't directly in concert with his own view. Respect vs. disrespect. Advocacy vs. dictatorship.

His response and refusal to acknowledge reality and even pledge respect for others by promising to no longer relentlessly dissect, trample upon and shout down others' perfectly legitimate advocacy (the wall of words, I suppose) sealed my opinion of the man in stone. His words have no meaning and he deserves no respect.

Up until now, because it's how I operate, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I held to the feeling that he truly wants to help cyclists, that he is concerned about safety and that he could be a true advocate.

It is now abundantly clear that he is not an advocate, he is that dictator. I would challenge that he no longer belongs in this forum. This is about safety and advocacy. This is about providing a wealth and DIVERSITY of DATA to enable people to make life-protecting decisions IN THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTS. By his own words, his mission is neither safety or advocacy. It is to speak, speak loudly, and speak repeatedly until he is declared Right.

"My goal is to present it so that nobody can reasonably object to it".

He speaks as an authority, using smoke, mirrors and a snake oil sales approach. He appears to do nothing in life to advance cyclist safety other than type words loudly and repeatedly into an internet forum. He has no credibility any more. I would implore newer cyclists to avoid his hollow rhetoric. Or at least challenge each post with: "PROVIDE THE DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT" and his own narrow cycling experience does not count as data. Nor do some untested theories of a guy on a website. Nor do some theories that a guy writes about in a book. Nor does the account of a fatal accident in the newspaper. And most importantly, nor does taking the words of the PERPETRATOR at face value (the entire premise of "inattentional blindness" to which there has been ZERO comprehensive, multienvironment, controlled applied research in a cycling environment). INSIST ON DATA. He demands that we put our safety and life blindly into the hands of his techniquest, theories, speculation and hypotheses. With no data to support their righteousness.

Some of his techniques have merit. But his approach and lack of credibility cause me to want to AVOID those techniques rather than adopt them. His approach and lack of credentials, empirical INDEPENDENT research and lack of data drowns out the information that could help cyclists choose life-protecting techniques. He is hurtful to safety and advocacy.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -Queen Gertrude, Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

By the way, I did not say: "My goal is to present it so that nobody can reasonably object to it".

I did say: "My goal is to find a way to present it such that no one can reasonably object to it."

The twist you put on my words is subtle but very revealing. In your version you make it sound like I'm trying to silence others. Perhaps that's what you feel I'm really trying to do, I don't know. What I'm trying to do is show that there simply is no reasonable objection to what I'm saying. I can only do that if a) it's really true, and b) I convey it in such a way that it is clearly understood (for it's probably not true for a misunderstanding of what I'm saying if it is true of an accurate interpretation of what I'm saying).

It is now abundantly clear that he is not an advocate, he is that dictator.There really is not much to be said in response to the ridiculous argument that I'm trying to be a "dictator" in a forum where everyone has as much or more power and influence than me. Do you even understand what a dictator is? :rolleyes:

I understand you don't like what I'm saying and/or how I'm saying it, and that you are looking for an excuse to ignore it and to encourage others to ignore it. But this is absurd:

didn't ask him to stop posting his opinion strongly and in a way that was seemingly irrefutable. I, however, asked him to post, let others speak their mind, and respect people enough to JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES. This, in contrast to the dissection and smashing down of each and every point of each and every post that isn't directly in concert with his own view. Respect vs. disrespect. Advocacy vs. dictatorship. How can I possibly NOT "let others speak their minds" in a forum such as this? There is no way. It's not like a cocktail party where one might physically dominate. Over 100 people have participated in this poll, and dozens made at least one comment in this thread. Dozens more could have as well, and still can. Certainly I have not done anything nor could do anything to prevent that. There have been dozens of active threads in this forum alone in which I have not participated at all while I've been active in this one. What on Earth causes you to think that I don't "respect people enough to JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES" is beyond me. And as far as "dissection and smashing down of each and every point of each and every post that isn't directly in concert with his own view", that's got to be a joke. I only get to a tiny fraction.

[Helmet Head]

yeah, and now joe parrots YOUR inexperience in this forum...blathering on about 'trust but verify' nonsense and other head pearls of inexperience masquerading as bicycling safety tenents....

head, give it up. your fear of overtaking traffic on lightly travelled, country roads with good sightlines is a chuckle to all of us that actually ride those types of roads regularily.

you've got some good advice, 'keep an eye out behind, use lane positioning for safety' but really step overboard when you insist you need to get EVERY driver to slow down or change lanes to pass- even on roads with 12 foot shoulders... remember the 12 foot shoulders with logging trucks fiasco from last year?


just stop. your fear of overtaking traffic on near empty country roads with good sightlines is an exhibition of your fear of traffic and your nervous nellie tendencies. armchair rider..... quit 'assuming' you 'know best'- the cycling community on this forum is tired of your diatribe.
Bek, your apparently poor reading comprehension continues to concern me. Again:

I don't slow EVERY overtaking car down, Bek.

Only EVERY overtaking car that is the first to arrive from behind after a significantly long gap.

When a stream of traffic is overtaking me while I'm riding in the margin of a WOL (whether it's stripe-demarcated as a bike lane or shoulder or not), I don't slow every one down. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Actually, what's interesting is that at least 83 out of 117 respondents would ride to the right of the right tire track. Could be more, but "near the right tire track" is kind of ambiguous and could go either way (my guess would be to the right, though).

I'm interested in knowing how you would interpret these results. To me, it looks like most are staying as far right as they feel is practicable and not taking up more room than they feel is necessary.
That's pretty much what I would expect most cyclists to say. There is a distinct lack of appreciation for the advantages of riding further left in our cycling culture, and how maintaining good rearward situational awareness (as well as to the front) using a quick fraction-of-a-second mirror glance every few seconds (just as students in driver safety and motorcycle safety classes are taught to do) ties in with that.

[Helmet Head]

Serge, while you're unsuccessful at slowing down every car, your fear of cars makes you think that every car should slow down and adjust position, just because you're on the road.

Yes, there is a great deal of fear.
That's not true at all. When I'm riding in the margin of a WOL (whether it's demarcated with a stripe as a shoulder or bike lane or not) and being by passed by a stream of faster traffic, I most certainly do not expect every car to slow down or adjust position. I expect for every car in the stream to continue following the car in front of it.

This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier:

What I'm trying to do is show that there simply is no reasonable objection to what I'm saying. I can only do that if a) it's really true, and b) I convey it in such a way that it is clearly understood (for it's probably not true for a misunderstanding of what I'm saying if it is true of an accurate interpretation of what I'm saying).


Peter's impression that "HH think['s] that every car should slow down and adjust position, just because [HH is] on the road" is obviously (to me - and who would know better?) "a misunderstanding of what I'm saying". And, of course, there is a reasonable objection to this misunderstanding: it's patently ridiculous and totally unreasonable to think that "every car should slow down and adjust position".

[Helmet Head]

Of course it is. Your fear is quite apparent to rational folks that have read even a small bit of your manifestos.

You think that your mere presence upon the road should cause motorists to slow down and adjust lane positions.

There are events and conditions that should cause motorists to take notice, slow down, and adjust lane positions. I suggest that the presence of a cyclist on the roadway constitutes such an event or condition



p.s. The fact that you're arguing semantics, while quite hypocritical, is very funny.
I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing context.

That old quote needs to be interpreted in context to understand its meaning. I was talking about one motorist with no one in front of him (besides the cyclist) approaching a single cyclist on the road. Yeah, in that scenario, I would prefer the motorist slow down and/or adjust, though I certainly don't expect if if I'm riding in a bike lane or shoulder (which is why I don't ride there in the time preceding that scenario).

And it's quite absurd for you to think you're more of an authority on what someone else thinks than that person is himself.

[MSPD]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -Queen Gertrude, Hamlet (III, ii, 239)



I "protest" because your actions on this forum could prevent people from finding life-saving information. You harm true advocacy and safety.

By the way, I did not say: "My goal is to present it so that nobody can reasonably object to it".

I did say: "My goal is to find a way to present it such that no one can reasonably object to it."

The twist you put on my words is subtle but very revealing.

My mistake but no attempt to twist words. I simply couldn't find the sentence to actually copy word for word amid your dozens of lengthy, noisy posts.



What I'm trying to do is show that there simply is no reasonable objection to what I'm saying.



I guess even if I meant to, I didn't need to twist your words. You just did it for me.



There really is not much to be said in response to the ridiculous argument that I'm trying to be a "dictator" in a forum where everyone has as much or more power and influence than me. Do you even understand what a dictator is?



Advocate: (n) One who supports or defends a cause. (v) To speak in favor of.

Dictate: (v) To issue orders or commands. To issue authoritatively.

Dictator: (n) One who dictates.

Advocate or dictator? Hey, let's use one of your pet polls: "Based on his history on this forum, HelmetHead is more similar to (a) an advocate for a particular cycling approach; (b) one who dictates the cycling approach that should be universally applied.

Or how about this one:

"Based on his text in this forum, HelmetHead's primary motivation is: (a) care about cycling safety and advocacy; (b) being publicly declared infallible and beyond objection.



How can I possibly NOT "let others speak their minds" in a forum such as this? There is no way. It's not like a cocktail party where one might physically dominate.

If I show up at a cocktail party and shout continuously, it will interrupt, or make impossible, the other conversations in the room. The sheer volume and length of posts you create makes it difficult for people like me, who are simply seeking a number of diverse ideas, theories and opinions on safety that I can apply to my own personal situation, to find that information.

Your noise drowns out the conversation.

Your volume and length of posts, and your insistence on browbeating...er...."addressing each and every point made" (paraphrased...don't argue semantics), forces one to scroll through your constantly morphing theory, hindsight, speculation, argument and hypotheticals -- unsupported by DATA or CREDENTIALS -- to find the important opinions and advice of those who don't choose to be as noisy as you.

As an open-minded person, I want to hear other opinions and techniques besides yours HH. To do so, I have to scroll through mountains of your excessive text.

This is both disrespectful of others but more importantly IS HURTFUL TO ADVOCACY AND SAFETY. Your cycling technique and experiences may not apply to my geography, riding conditions, and style. You refuse to recognize this. You state that your approach is unequivocally the best for all which implies it is the best for me. Blindly applying your techique as you dictate, without any data or research to support its application in my situation, would possibly risk my life.

You are an obstacle to people finding valuable information. YOU ARE HURTFUL TO MY ABILITY TO MAKE SAFE DECISIONS.

[AlmostTrick]

Riding at the far right edge of the roadway under all conditions is practically all I see by cyclists around here. From a safety standpoint, it really is quite ridiculous.

Considering all the benefits riding further left gives you for dealing with hazards in front of you, I don't think it's fair to say that someone necessarily has fear of overtaking traffic just because they like to do so. Actually, a case could more easily be made that those who stay far right all the time are the ones with the fear to the rear.

[Helmet Head]

I "protest" because your actions on this forum could prevent people from finding life-saving information. You harm true advocacy and safety.



My mistake but no attempt to twist words. I simply couldn't find the sentence to actually copy word for word amid your dozens of lengthy, noisy posts.



I guess even if I meant to, I didn't need to twist your words. You just did it for me.



Advocate: (n) One who supports or defends a cause. (v) To speak in favor of.

Dictate: (v) To issue orders or commands. To issue authoritatively.

Dictator: (n) One who dictates.

Advocate or dictator? Hey, let's use one of your pet polls: "Based on his history on this forum, HelmetHead is more similar to (a) an advocate for a particular cycling approach; (b) one who dictates the cycling approach that should be universally applied.

Or how about this one:

"Based on his text in this forum, HelmetHead's primary motivation is: (a) care about cycling safety and advocacy; (b) being publicly declared infallible and beyond objection.



If I show up at a cocktail party and shout continuously, it will interrupt, or make impossible, the other conversations in the room. The sheer volume and length of posts you create makes it difficult for people like me, who are simply seeking a number of diverse ideas, theories and opinions on safety that I can apply to my own personal situation, to find that information.

Your noise drowns out the conversation.

Your volume and length of posts, and your insistence on browbeating...er...."addressing each and every point made" (paraphrased...don't argue semantics), forces one to scroll through your constantly morphing theory, hindsight, speculation, argument and hypotheticals -- unsupported by DATA or CREDENTIALS -- to find the important opinions and advice of those who don't choose to be as noisy as you.

As an open-minded person, I want to hear other opinions and techniques besides yours HH. To do so, I have to scroll through mountains of your excessive text.

This is both disrespectful of others but more importantly IS HURTFUL TO ADVOCACY AND SAFETY. Your cycling technique and experiences may not apply to my geography, riding conditions, and style. You refuse to recognize this. You state that your approach is unequivocally the best for all which implies it is the best for me. Blindly applying your techique as you dictate, without any data or research to support its application in my situation, would possibly risk my life.

You are an obstacle to people finding valuable information. YOU ARE HURTFUL TO MY ABILITY TO MAKE SAFE DECISIONS.
I did not dominate the thread in which this particular incident was first discussed. I started this separate thread. No one is required to read it or participate in it, including you. The other thread is still there, and open for you and everyone else to post in, just as this one is. I am not the only one posting in this thread. Prior to that I've been mostly inactive in this forum for over a month. Your accusations are absurd.

[tallard]

Last week I was at my cottage (in the Laurentians north of Montreal), and was puzzled to see people riding racing bikes on the road (fast, no shoulder, steep sides, hills and turns) when there is an amazing railway trail network connecting various towns and lakes, going for hundreds of kilometers.

I've been on bits of that trail, it is the absolute most boring riding I could ever imagine. Sorry. But the Canada Trail is a great place for old ladies with one gear!:p

[Helmet Head]

That's a lie Serge.



_________________________________________________________



Another lie. Check your context Serge. The quote below related to riding in bike lanes and motorists not slowing down for you.

They're not lies, Pete. Lies imply intent to deceive. I'm going from memory and by guessing as best as I can since you're not providing links to the quotes.

Anyway, yeah, IF they're passing me 2 feet away at 30+ mph differentials, then I do want them to move further left, and bike lane and shoulder stripes make it difficult to get them to do that. But if I can coax the first guy to adjust left, that seems to cause the whole stream to adjust accordingly, at least sometimes.

But not liking to have motorists passing me 2 feet away at 30+ mph differentials is very different from thinking "that every car should slow down and adjust position, just because on the road."

Context matters. It's true that I want cars to slow down and/or adjust position IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS/SCENARIOS, such as:
I'm up ahead in their path.
If they don't slow down or adjust, they'll be passing me 2 feet away at 30+ mph differentials.But in some contexts/scenarios I'm fine with cars passing me without adjusting speed or position, including when I'm in the margin of a WOL and they are passing me with sufficient clearance without having to adjust to do so. So it's incorrect to say that I think "that [I]every car should slow down and adjust position, just because [I'm] on the road."

[SirMike1983]

I've been on bits of that trail, it is the absolute most boring riding I could ever imagine. Sorry. But the Canada Trail is a great place for old ladies with one gear!:p



We have some similar local trails as compared to the roads- flat versus rolling. I ride on the local streets sometimes as a change of pace, but on hot days in the summer here in Maryland- grab me a shawl and knitting sticks on the way out the door.

[Bekologist]

head,

let's pretend you are on that road. cars are approaching from BOTH directions.

ONCE you get the car behind you to slow noticably, THEN where do you ride? do you make the cars wait to pass you, or do you ride to the right, safely in the shoulder? Remember, you've already gotten the lead car to notice you. what if they were a series of logging trucks?

..I can feel the inexperience and fear welling up over the horizon.....

[Helmet Head]

head,

let's pretend you are on that road. cars are approaching from BOTH directions.

ONCE you get the car behind you to slow noticably, THEN where do you ride? do you make the cars wait to pass you, or do you ride to the right, safely in the shoulder? Remember, you've already gotten the lead car to notice you. what if they were a series of logging trucks?

..I can feel the inexperience and fear welling up over the horizon.....
The answer depends on whether the outside lane plus any paved safe and reasonable shoulder or bike lane is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side with passing cars or not.

If it is wide enough to safely share, then I ride in the margin.

If it is not wide enough to safely share, then I ride far enough left to make it clear in no uncertain terms that they cannot squeeze into the lane with me to pass; that they must move at least partially into the adjacent lane to pass.

[tallard]

Dictator: (n) One who dictates.

Sorry but this was really bugging me: Wikipedia : Dictator
...
In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). Like the term tyrant, originally a respectable Ancient Greek title, and to a lesser degree autocrat, it came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.

You are an obstacle to people finding valuable information. YOU ARE HURTFUL TO MY ABILITY TO MAKE SAFE DECISIONS.

The only hurt I've seen from HH is the length of his posts, he's not forcing you to read him, and he is not forcing you to ride in any particular manner, he is suggesting it. Wording like yours is very anti ANY forum etiquette. Forums aren't only for slow paced information exchange, they're also a place for fast and intensive debate, as the saying goes, if you can't take the heat...

[Helmet Head]

They are lies Serge.



So much fear...

That's really the root of your issues. You autophobia drives (pun intended) almost all of your posts. It's interesting to watch.



Semantics again hypocrite...

But that's what you believe Serge, so how can it be incorrect?
More flak and no content. Why are you so obsessed with me, Peter? I'm beginning to wonder... Should I be flattered? :love:

[nick burns]

If they don't slow down or adjust, they'll be passing me 2 feet away at 30+ mph differentials.

Of course I know it's all a matter of personal preferences or concerns, but to me being passed 2 feet away at 30+ mph isn't a big deal, unless there's something sticking out from the vehicle that might hit me.

[Helmet Head]

Sorry but this was really bugging me: Wikipedia : Dictator
...
In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). Like the term tyrant, originally a respectable Ancient Greek title, and to a lesser degree autocrat, it came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.



The only hurt I've seen from HH is the length of his posts, he's not forcing you to read him, and he is not forcing you to ride in any particular manner, he is suggesting it. Wording like yours is very anti ANY forum etiquette. Forums aren't only for slow paced information exchange, they're also a place for fast and intensive debate, as the saying goes, if you can't take the heat...
Thank you, tallard. That's what I was trying to say. It's really odd how guys like Peter, Bek and recently MSPD get so obsessed with me. They focus much more on me and my style than on the content of what I'm saying. Very strange.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Prior to that I've been mostly inactive in this forum for over a month. Your accusations are absurd.

I was going to post a comment about that month but decided to be tactful. Mum is the word.

[Bekologist]

The answer depends on whether the outside lane plus any paved safe and reasonable shoulder... is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side with passing cars or not.

If it is wide enough to safely share, then I ride in the margin.

....so, you'd be riding in the shoulder of this road, then. fair enough.

[joejack951]

Of course I know it's all a matter of personal preferences or concerns, but to me being passed 2 feet away at 30+ mph isn't a big deal, unless there's something sticking out from the vehicle that might hit me.

Just note that HH was talking about 30+ mph differentials not just 30+ mph. And of course, 2 feet is not a big deal to most road cyclists unless someone were to actually hit them, which is why I try to get more clearance than 2 feet in the first place to avoid the chance that the small safety margin might be infringed upon. With a larger safety margin, a small error on the cyclist's or motorist's part is a non-issue.

[joejack951]

...so, you'd be riding in the shoulder of this road, then. fair enough.

You really don't know how to read, do you?

[nick burns]

Just note that HH was talking about 30+ mph differentials not just 30+ mph. And of course, 2 feet is not a big deal to most road cyclists unless someone were to actually hit them, which is why I try to get more clearance than 2 feet in the first place to avoid the chance that the small safety margin might be infringed upon. With a larger safety margin, a small error on the cyclist's or motorist's part is a non-issue.


Yeah, I understand what he was saying, like riding at 20mph and a car passing at 50mph. Still to me, 2 feet seems pretty adequate. But like I said, everyone's got their own margin of comfort.

[Bekologist]

joe, don't insult me. I know how to read, I know how to read road conditions and pavement, I know how to read traffic on rural roads. I've been using a mirror for touring since the early eighties.

I extrapolate head would be riding on the shoulder of that road, once he did his dance of fear to get the traffic to make it apparant to head and his mirror they'd seen him.

The answer depends on whether the outside lane plus any paved safe and reasonable shoulder... is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side with passing cars or not.

If it is wide enough to safely share, then I ride in the margin.

so, head would be riding on the shoulder of the road in question once he'd gotten the cars to notice him. seems abundantly clear.

[joejack951]

joe, don't insult me. I know how to read, I know how to read road conditions and pavement, I know how to read traffic on rural roads. I've been using a mirror for touring since the early eighties.

I extrapolate head would be riding on the shoulder of that road, once he did his dance of fear to get the traffic to make it apparant to head and his mirror they'd seen him.

so, head would be riding on the shoulder of the road in question once he'd gotten the cars to notice him. seems abundantly clear.

With a large truck on either side of the road, I doubt that shoulder would be wide enough to use safely. I certainly wouldn't use it. To jump from what HH posted to your conclusion that HH would use the shoulder in the presence of any type of traffic is showing a lack of reading comprehension.

[tallard]

Thank you, tallard. That's what I was trying to say. It's really odd how guys like Peter, Bek and recently MSPD get so obsessed with me. They focus much more on me and my style than on the content of what I'm saying. Very strange.

Well not so strange, I used to be the A+ kid for my first 3.5 years of highschool but had not many friends and was never allowed to discuss academics or grades amongst those friends, then I switched behaviors, started skipping class, saying dumb things to teachers, partying late at night with the "cool" kids, my grades dropped to about 80% but my circle of friends increased vastly. I've experienced all sorts of people and behaviors in my Roller Coaster life.

Unfortunately I've found that popularity and truth rarely coexist.

[Helmet Head]

....so, you'd be riding in the shoulder of this road, then. fair enough.
As you noted earlier, it's hard to judge the width of the outside lane, but if you add the width of the shoulder, it might actually be wide enough to safely share. I'd have to ride there to know for sure. But, yeah, if it is wide enough, then I would ride in the shoulder, as I'm being passed.

But during significantly long gaps in traffic, I'd be "centerish" in the lane, probably somewhere between the right tire track and the center of the lane.

P.S.

Thanks for focusing on content.

[Helmet Head]

Yeah, I understand what he was saying, like riding at 20mph and a car passing at 50mph. Still to me, 2 feet seems pretty adequate. But like I said, everyone's got their own margin of comfort.
Well, I'm not out there with a ruler. The point is, most of us have a sense for when it's too close. Whatever that is, in a WOL with no stripe, if you maintain that much space on your right, most motorists tend to give you at least that much on the left. When the stripe is there, not so much. You could be three feet to the left of the road edge, and riding with wheels just to the right of the stripe, and getting passed very closely.

[Helmet Head]

Serge, you're even more delusional than I thought if you think that my discussion of your fears of being passed too close, yourbeliefs that your mere presence on the road should cause motorists to slow down and adjust lanes, etc. isn't about the "content of what you're saying."

Time for another Headpoll™?
Admit it Peter, you're obsessed about me. :love:

And, no, those comments are not about the content of what I'm saying. They are about your twisted/obsessed opinion about what I'm saying, and, ultimately, they're about me. :love:

EDIT: For anyone who may not realize it, what I'm trying to do here is DISCOURAGE Peter and others to post so much about me and post more about cycling safety techniques and practices, their pros and cons, and the reasoning underlying them.

[MSPD]

Sorry but this was really bugging me: Wikipedia : Dictator
...
In modern usage, it refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). Like the term tyrant, originally a respectable Ancient Greek title, and to a lesser degree autocrat, it came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.

The only hurt I've seen from HH is the length of his posts, he's not forcing you to read him, and he is not forcing you to ride in any particular manner, he is suggesting it. Wording like yours is very anti ANY forum etiquette. Forums aren't only for slow paced information exchange, they're also a place for fast and intensive debate, as the saying goes, if you can't take the heat...

I was using the Websters II New College Dictionary that I have next to me on the desk which society has, for decades, accepted as an authoritative source of information (unlike Wikipedia onto which anyone can post information regardless of the existence of supporting data and credentials....hmmm....thank you for bringing up that interesting coincidence.)

And you are correct, I'm not forced to read anything here. I choose to read because I am seeking information, links to research and data, and personal anecdotes and advocacy that would assist me in safeguarding my safety as I become a more experienced rider. I previously chose to read HH's posts because some, if not alot of it, made sense.

However, I have since learned that his motivation has nothing to do with safety, and he lacks any credibility or data to back up his theory. This now taints anything he can post in my mind unless it is new data or research to support his theories.

(HH, the danger you pose to people like me seeking to safeguard their cycling, as well as your utter disrespect for the dead and injured is why I have become concerned with your style as well as your content. That is the only time I've chosen to address you in this forum).

Not at all anti-forum etiquette. In fact, I am posting to help encourage MORE etiquette, especially when it relates to capitalizing on a peer's death or serious injury (i.e. posting a photo of a victim and using unsubstantiated hindsight to question his perfectly correct cycling tactics) to advance a self-focused agenda. Tasteless = poor etiquette.

[Helmet Head]

joe, don't insult me. I know how to read, I know how to read road conditions and pavement, I know how to read traffic on rural roads. I've been using a mirror for touring since the early eighties.

I extrapolate head would be riding on the shoulder of that road, once he did his dance of fear to get the traffic to make it apparant to head and his mirror they'd seen him.



The answer depends on whether the outside lane plus any paved safe and reasonable shoulder... is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side with passing cars or not.

If it is wide enough to safely share, then I ride in the margin.



so, head would be riding on the shoulder of the road in question once he'd gotten the cars to notice him. seems abundantly clear.
Not necessarily, Bek. We have not established that that apparently narrow outside lane plus that very narrow shoulder amounts to space that is "wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side with passing cars or not". It is my opinion that you can't determine that from just looking at that one photo. I thought you said that too earlier in this thread, but I might be mistaken.

[nick burns]

Well, I'm not out there with a ruler. The point is, most of us have a sense for when it's too close. Whatever that is, in a WOL with no stripe, if you maintain that much space on your right, most motorists tend to give you at least that much on the left. When the stripe is there, not so much. You could be three feet to the left of the road edge, and riding with wheels just to the right of the stripe, and getting passed very closely.

It seems to me people in vehicles will pass you with as much clearance as they feel is adequate, no matter where you are positioned on the road, whether you're on a bicycle, motorcycle, or in a car. That's just my opinion though, based on nothing more than observations I've accumulated over the years, both as a bicyclist and a motor vehicle driver.

I say position yourself and ride however makes you feel most comfortable. The most important thing is that you're riding. The more of us the better.

[Helmet Head]

Some people, like Serge, are very fearful when riding bikes and believe that your front tire can blow at any moment, and that could cause you to swerve or fall to your left.

These types of fearful cyclists also believe that motorists should not be comfortable passing cyclists, whether they are in bike lanes or not, within 3 feet of them.

Those same fearful cyclists believe that cyclists need 3 feet of emergency maneuvering space on either side and that riding in the center of a bike lane is dangerous because the cyclist's body is within a foot of the left edge, and motorists driving in their own lanes could be just a few inches beyond that. Too close!.

Much of this fear is based upon the notion that stems from a basic lack of control over their bicycle, i.e. Cyclists can fall, swerve or suddenly leave their path at almost any time.
All this attention gives me the goose pimples. :love:

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

With a large truck on either side of the road, I doubt that shoulder would be wide enough to use safely. I certainly wouldn't use it. To jump from what HH posted to your conclusion that HH would use the shoulder in the presence of any type of traffic is showing a lack of reading comprehension.
Agreed.

[Helmet Head]

Well not so strange, I used to be the A+ kid for my first 3.5 years of highschool but had not many friends and was never allowed to discuss academics or grades amongst those friends, then I switched behaviors, started skipping class, saying dumb things to teachers, partying late at night with the "cool" kids, my grades dropped to about 80% but my circle of friends increased vastly. I've experienced all sorts of people and behaviors in my Roller Coaster life.

Unfortunately I've found that popularity and truth rarely coexist.
Indeed.

[tallard]

I was using the Websters II New College Dictionary that I have next to me on the desk which society has, for decades, accepted as an authoritative source of information

Websters, ick, Hmm, maybe it partially explains the USA having one of the higher rates of illiteracy among western countries:p

(unlike Wikipedia onto which anyone can post information regardless of the existence of supporting data and credentials....hmmm....thank you for bringing up that interesting coincidence.)What have been your contributions to Wikipedia? I've looked into a couple of subjects in which I'm competent (ie lactose intolerance) and found that it's very difficult to contribute anything that's outside conventional wisdom. Certain people on Wikipedia and it's infrastructure are very "ruler" dependent. In conclusion, when visiting Wikipedia, the very first sentences are conventional wisdom, you must farther and wider to find the dissenting opinions...

[Helmet Head]

Websters, ick, Hmm, maybe it partially explains the USA having one of the higher rates of illiteracy among western countries:p

What have been your contributions to Wikipedia? I've looked into a couple of subjects in which I'm competent (ie lactose intolerance) and found that it's very difficult to contribute anything that's outside conventional wisdom. Certain people on Wikipedia and it's infrastructure are very "ruler" dependent. In conclusion, when visiting Wikipedia, the very first sentences are conventional wisdom, you must farther and wider to find the dissenting opinions...
I agree that Wikipedia has a strong tendency towards accurately reflecting conventional wisdom. The main exceptions are almost exclusively on obscure topics that get very little attention.