There's nothing irrational about wanting (and doing anything in your power to get) at least three feet of passing clearance from motorists under most conditions. Sure, in some situations less is ok, but how can more clearance be a bad thing?

My wife was knocked down by a passer. he cleared her by ~18" but had a 2 foot out wing mirror for load towing. The mirror nailed her helmet. He drove on.

Three feet sure would have came in handy here. I hope your wife made a speedy recovery Ken.

I oppose 3 foot passing laws because I think they reinforce widespread notions out there about the inherent dangers of cycling on roads. I think they bring the wrong kind of attention to cycling in terms of promoting cycling.
Ok.

We agree to disagree.

I don't find I need a law to get adequate passing room. But I can't see my self opposing a 3-foot passing law, that doesn't make sense, in my opinion.

Laws that promote motorist tolerance of cyclists, while also supporting the role of cyclists as equal users of the roads, are a very good thing, also in my opinion.

There is a big yellow sign on my commute (right alongside a separated bike path) that says, "Share the Road" with a bicycle pictured. Of course, I don't need a sign to tell me my rights. But I would never oppose the sign, nor think of it as bringing the wrong kind of attention to the cause of cycling.

Cyclists deserve respect. So nobody knocks you down with a close pass, and they might be extremely rare. Yet who can oppose a law that promotes respect for cyclists?

Rightfully so.

Your self-admitted fear of riding in and around traffic causes you to be extremely, irrationally, fearful of being passed at less than three feet, to fear motorists so much that you feel you need to control them to be safe, to fear having a blowout and swerving into traffic, etc.

Your posts simply ooze fear.

Let's assume for a minute that you are correct and that HH is as full of fear as you suggest. Why do you object so much or why is it so funny to you?

Yes, your incessant whining about motorists sounds very fearful.
Oh, goody, more deep, thoughtful posts from Pete Fagerlin.

where would you ride on THIS road? ;)

would a cyclist riding in the shoulder stand a better chance of

a)getting hit by a meteorite
b) having a blowout, falling to the left and subsequently getting clipped by a motorist due the cyclists' failure to maintain a centerish lane position in the absence of same direction traffic?

There was a small blurb in Mens Health magazine a year ago (maybe more) about impressing women. One of the ways was to put a bicycle helmet in the back seat of your car, even if you don't own a bicycle. Aparantly (according to the blurb) when a lady takes notice of the helmet it shows her that you not only enjoy outside activities, but that you are also concerned about your own safety, which heightens your "will be around for a long helthy life" points with her.
What is this magazine you were reading, Cosmo for men? :rolleyes: ;)

Yes, your incessant whining about motorists sounds very fearful.
No, Pete it is an expression of the reality that I face... think of it as expressing survival instincts. The evaluation of day to day risks in any situation is just an assesment of those risks and what is needed to mitigate them.

No, you do not live or ride in an area with unique traffic situations.
If you mean the same traffic situations can be found in other areas, I agree with you. If you mean that the same traffic situations can be found everywhere, I disagree with you. Population differences around the country alone dictate different traffic loads, geography makes for different situations and weather also makes for different situations. Just moving a few miles east makes a huge difference around here. Don't propose to know what it is like unless you have been in a particular area.

He is simply expressing his fear of motorists. And a bit of fear is not an unhealthy thing... firemen fear fires; police, armed criminals; miners, cave-ins; teachers, unruly students. Managing and planning for that fear is what any of us have to do to live with it.

The "fear card" is quite apropos. Bike a few miles on my streets before you criticize.

Your assumption that you are riding in a difficult area and that I lack experience with the same kind of riding is myopic, naive, and just plain wishful thinking.
Really... then tell us about your mean streets... go ahead, paint the picture. How big is your town, what kind of traffic, what is the population, what sort of autos do you face? Or are you just going to make empty claims? Where do you ride Pete?

What profound pronouncement is next? Perhaps "the sun rises in the East"? Ah yes, once again sharing your brilliance with us...

Your assumption that your cycling experience is unique due to your location is silly.
Your assumption that cycling is the same everywhere is even sillier.

People post pictures of different areas where they ride all the time... they rarely look the same. Bek likes to show wide shoulders... I find wide shoulders such as the ones he shows quite rare around here. How many red light cameras exist where you live? Show me that everywhere is the same and I might buy your arguments... but you can't do that, different places have their own unique flavors and problems... ever hear of a Jersey sweep? Don't see it too often in say Mesa Grande AZ.

i had the impression that helemt head's six mile commute was so daunting for him that he often drives his car. not a dedicated transportational bicyclist.

and yet, isn't a lot of head's hysteria and hyperbole centered on rural country roads with low traffic volumes and good sightlines?

On head's bike commute in this San Diegan "golden triangle' gene mentions (when head commutes by bike) he's got a lot of good bike lanes and steady and heavy traffic. I've seen the pictures. Seems head's going to be riding safely and vehicularily in the bike lanes in San Diego's 'Golden Triangle' when one is provided and traffic is steady.

course, he doesn't like to talk about THAT.

I find that his hypocrisy and baseless self-righteousness, when coupled the great difficulty that he has with being consistent and with writing succinctly and clearly, to be very funny.

You seem to take great pleasure in referring to quotes out of context in order to "prove" that HH is hypocritical and inconsistent. I find that funny. I don't find HH's posts unclear at all and while he can be wordy, the same can be said of anyone who posts to this forum offering advice on certain subjects. Some things just take a lot of words to explain, especially when so many people seem to have trouble understanding what is being said. It reminds me of college where some students just couldn't grasp certain mathematical concepts and had the professor talking for a whole class about something others understood after reading a short blurb in the textbook. It's not particularly funny when looking at either side in my opinion unless you bask in the glory of being "smarter" than others.

I also believe that much of his advice makes it seem that riding a bike on the roads is much more difficult, dangerous and complex than it really is.

Is your opinion based on having attempted to ride as HH has suggested or just based on imagining what it might be like? Do you disagree with HH that while inadvertent drift collisions are relatively rare that doing something to protect against them is worthwhile (whatever it may be)? If not, does it not bother you at all that it might happen or do you place it in the category of asteroids crashing into cyclists even though we seem to get a report of the former happening at least once a month while we have yet to hear of the latter?

i had the impression that helemt head's six mile commute was so daunting for him that he often drives his car. not a dedicated transportational bicyclist.

and yet, isn't a lot of head's hysteria and hyperbole centered on rural country roads with low traffic volumes and good sightlines?

On head's bike commute in this San Diegan "golden triangle' gene mentions (when head commutes by bike) he's got a lot of good bike lanes and steady and heavy traffic. I've seen the pictures. Seems head's going to be riding safely and vehicularily in the bike lanes in San Diego's 'Golden Triangle' when one is provided and traffic is steady.

course, he doesn't like to talk about THAT.

Actually his route (we've discussed it) covers one area that is not particularly friendly to cyclists... a 50MPH arterial with 6 lanes that has parked cars and no bike lanes and freeway on and off ramps. It is quite close to his office, so one of those "gee I just need to get right here and there are no facilities situations."

But don't kid yourself about the BL in the area... some of them are a real joke... like the one I avoid as it ends right into a line of parked cars with three lanes on one side of a busy intersection and two lanes (with those parked cars) and no BL on the other side. BL are far from perfect here. That is on a 45MPH road with lots of mall driveways... The traffic can vary from virtually no traffic (Sunday mornings) to shear idiocy at rush hour, to fully stopped (where a bike makes a great deal of sense actually).

However I do somewhat agree that some of his theories are just that... theories... just as JF has some strange ideas about how to handle traffic too.

Let's be honest, there are no perfect situations, no perfect answers.. and even Bike Lanes can leave a lot to be desired, especially when they are designed by those that design streets for autos.

...like I said, gene,

I had the impression (from his own admittances) that helemt head's six mile commute was so daunting for him that he often drives his car. he's not a dedicated transportational bicyclist.

Regardless, riding urban/suburban conditions are markedly different from rural roads with good sightlines, sometimes very wide shoulders, and very little traffic, where helemt head's 'centerish' advice to avoid 'inadverdant drift' gets so much mileage in this forum.

I never claimed that riding conditions are the same everywhere. That's an illogical leap that you've made, a straw man even.

What conclusion do you want me to make, as that was what I drew from your rantings. Are you then telling me that indeed conditions do vary from place to place and that a cyclist in one place may or may not have developed the skills or have an understanding of what riding in another location may be like? Certainly that situation may even exist for motorists.

Someone driving country roads for most of their life may not have the skills or understanding for instance to take on LA Freeways.

Sorry Pete, but unless you are more specific, then one can only draw certain assumptions based on your writings. If you only "paint a partial picture" one can only see what you paint.

At this point, all you seem to say is "that isn't right" but you offer nothing in comparison or contrast.

Where for instance have you ridden in San Diego... specifically I mentioned that the conditions are quite different just a few miles east.

John Forester lives in San Diego county... he has mentioned traveling east and west from his location (where I too have lived). He does not however discuss north and south of Lemon Grove... where indeed the population and traffic density are quite a bit higher than his somewhat "bedroom community" location.

As a contrast other cyclists here on BF have mentioned certain areas of Houston, and how the wide arterials are difficult. Still others have mentioned that they have no issues in Houston, but are in fact in vastly different areas of the same city.

I have no doubt that similar situations can be found in many of the large cities of the US, but certainly we all do not experience the same situations. There is no Chicago Loop here in San Diego. There is no Weatherford Traffic Circle in Portland Oregon, there are no Blue Lanes in LA. We all have unique situations. The key is understanding that there are no hard and fast rules and that different situations call for different responses... even at different times of day. Oh and for the record, HH is not always right.

...like I said, gene,

I had the impression (from his own admittances) that helemt head's six mile commute was so daunting for him that he often drives his car. he's not a dedicated transportational bicyclist.

Regardless, riding urban/suburban conditions are markedly different from rural roads with good sightlines, sometimes very wide shoulders, and very little traffic, where helemt head's 'centerish' advice to avoid 'inadverdant drift' gets so much mileage in this forum.

I too think the centerish thing is overblown, but on the other hand, it is a technique that is often overlooked... far too many cyclists tend to fall into the curb hugging routine where moving left can make a positive difference. "Defaulting center..." I don't buy that either. It is a time and place thing as far as I am concerned.

i find the entire premise of this thread, and the OP's subsequent posts, quite amusing as well, pete.

the OP is obsessing about fear of blowouts causing near misses or physically being hit by automobile traffic, yet he believes passing clearance laws are bad for bicycling. however, he pontificates overwhelming concern that causes him to create that passing clearance, to prevent a tire blowout from throwing him into the path of an overtaking vehicle.

a study in contradictions.....

The worst incident I have ever had while riding a bicycle:

A mother of three leaned out the window of her van and swatted me on the butt while I was standing on the pedals, climbing a hill.

Scared the crap out of me...I'm usually much more attentive to what's going on around me. This was in the days before I used a mirror consistently.

1. Found a LEO and reported the incident.

2. Actually caught up to the van when they stopped to eat and gently explained to the lady that what she did was unsafe not a good idea. She said she was just having some fun with me. :(

So, despite HH's assertions that taking the lane confers some sort of "Cloak of Invincibility", I remain personally unconvinced. Not that I'll change my actions...just be more vigilant (I'd forgotten my Take a Look mirror that day...one of the few times in the last few years I've ridden without it).

"safer" doesn't imply "invincible"

What would have happened if you'd been in the gutter - the guy still doesn't have room to pass in the lane, he still underestimates your speed, he still crosses the yellow line, and he still panics when he can't pass fast enough. So perhaps he still gets back in the lane early and clips you anyway. Or maybe he doesn't, and the thinks he's OK to take the blind curve with half of him over the yellow line and he hits someone head-on.

Bottom line there is that a dipsh*t with a truck and trailer did something dumb. To me, the math is simple - if there's enough room to share a lane without forcing cars over the yellow line, do it. If not, then riding to the right invites them to do dangerous things. That's not to say they won't still *decide* to do dangerous things anyway - but they have to be conscious about it, like how the redneck who flattened you had to know what he was doing.

I started taking the lane because people tried to slide past me without having room to do it. To their credit, they gave me plenty of room, usually - but the cars in the other lane that they almost sideswiped didn't seem to care for it (to judge by the horns).

Wow, some nanny moderator deleted my reply, despite the fact that it was within the forum guidelines. I can't say that I'm surprised.



Here it is again:

"No, you do not live or ride in an area with unique traffic situations."

Let me know if I need to bust out the crayons yet again.



I answered your questions about where I ride in my previous post. Go back and read it again.



I've ridden in east county (Pine Valley), from Mission Bay to Mission Hills, from the harbor north to La Jolla, etc. I've also driven in other areas of San Diego and the roads are not unique, especially when compared to many other areas in the state.

You are claiming that my comments about you and Serge being so fearful must be because I'm not familiar with the aggressive drivers, scary streets, etc. that you two face in San Diego. That's silly.


Most of San Diego metro area has either WOL, or BL or multilaned roads. That's just the kind of non-unique environment that I ride in.

I don't ride in door zones. It's a conscious/calculated decision driven by analysis. I choose not to ride there not because I'm "fearful" of door zones (or even doors). It's because I know if I ride in door zones, sooner or later my number will come up, and someone will suddenly open a door without me noticing, possibly causing me to crash. I would like to reduce the likelihood of that happening, possibly even reducing it to zero by never riding in door zones.

Similarly, I don't "fear" close passes. I don't flinch. My heart rate doesn't go up. It's not about fear. It's about odds. I prefer to ride in a manner that discourages close passes, so as to reduce the odds that there is ever a close pass attempt and some other simultaneous factor that, combined, causes a crash.

I seek to avoid door zones and close passes for the same reason I choose to wear a helmet when riding and seatbelt when driving: it's simply about good practices designed to improve safety odds.

That said, I agree with Peter that there is nothing remarkable about San Diego roads and traffic as compared to other roads I've ridden and driven on all over the state, country and parts of Europe, with respect to how one needs to ride in order to be safe and treated well by the drivers.

ah, and you also ride in bike lanes..... hopefully as a fully cognizant vehicular cyclist, not lulled into complaceny :D by the stripe....

All the 'experts' here selfishly dont care or just dont
realize for every superserious,'expert' cyclist there are
about 500 more ride occasionally types and 2000 more
recreational/sidewalk only-ers they feel dont need
to be represented in thier crazed conquest. The 'rules'
should only benefit those who are not scared to powerweave
their way down I-95 and show motorists how it should be :rolleyes:
I know Id be very angry if a driver gave my 10 year old
niece 3' ft of room :rolleyes:
I was going to just ignore this one (like most of us usually do with your posts), but in light of the questions you raised in the other thread about this kind of stuff, here is a good example.

Perhaps in your mind this somehow connects to the discussion going on this thread, but I don't see the connection. Apparently, no one else does either, for there are no comments about this post, except for this one from me. So if you started making these types of disconnected and irrelevant rants in court, I could see why the judges would have cut you off.

But maybe the judges and I are just missing something.

i think fems' got a very valid point, head. you don't see that? she's suggesting the VC high speed diferential lane grabbers are a very small percentage of total bicyclists in America. I agree with her, and i'm sure you do too.

you think removing bicycling infrastructure and opposing passing clearance laws will make serious, lane grabbing on 50mph arterial cyclists out of the bulk of the bicycling population, and I disagree strongly with that fantasy.

Rightfully so.

Your self-admitted fear of riding in and around traffic causes you to be extremely, irrationally, fearful of being passed at less than three feet, to fear motorists so much that you feel you need to control them to be safe, to fear having a blowout and swerving into traffic, etc.

Your posts simply ooze fear.
I see it's about me again. :love: Down boy, down!

Self-admitted fear of riding in and around traffic? :roflmao: Are you spiking the Viagra with hallucinogenics?

Ok.

We agree to disagree.

I don't find I need a law to get adequate passing room. But I can't see my self opposing a 3-foot passing law, that doesn't make sense, in my opinion.

Laws that promote motorist tolerance of cyclists, while also supporting the role of cyclists as equal users of the roads, are a very good thing, also in my opinion.

There is a big yellow sign on my commute (right alongside a separated bike path) that says, "Share the Road" with a bicycle pictured. Of course, I don't need a sign to tell me my rights. But I would never oppose the sign, nor think of it as bringing the wrong kind of attention to the cause of cycling.

Cyclists deserve respect. So nobody knocks you down with a close pass, and they might be extremely rare. Yet who can oppose a law that promotes respect for cyclists?
Let's just say I'm not strongly in favor or opposed.

Folks like noisebeam have convinced me the 3' foot, which they have in AZ, does not seem to make much of a difference. I suspect it makes cycling seem more dangerous than it is.

Gene has a point about a helmet use doing the same thing. But in that case I think the tradeoff between making cycling seem more dangerous and actually making cycling safer is worth it, because I believe helmets really can make a signficant difference. The 3' laws seem to just make cycling seem more dangerous without making cycling actually safer at all.

I was hit by a close passer.

4th turn in a 4 corner 90 degree criterium. I was five to ten wheels back. I let a small gap open in front of me on the inside, and some guy in red and white kit swooped in front of me, taking out my front wheel, and about 5 other guys.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. By which i mean, flame it. As in flame war. Toodles.

i think fems' got a very valid point, head. you don't see that? she's suggesting the VC high speed diferential lane grabbers are a very small percentage of total bicyclists in America. I agree with her, and i'm sure you do too.

you think removing bicycling infrastructure and opposing passing clearance laws will make serious, lane grabbing on 50mph arterial cyclists out of the bulk of the bicycling population, and I disagree strongly with that fantasy.
Let's say that's true. What is the relevance of that point to this thread?

i think fems' got a very valid point, head. you don't see that? she's suggesting the VC high speed diferential lane grabbers are a very small percentage of total bicyclists in America. I agree with her, and i'm sure you do too.

you think removing bicycling infrastructure and opposing passing clearance laws will make serious, lane grabbing on 50mph arterial cyclists out of the bulk of the bicycling population, and I disagree strongly with that fantasy.
Yes, it's true that " VC high speed diferential lane grabbers are a very small percentage of total bicyclists in America". What is the relevance of that point to this thread?

More importantly, what is the basis as well as relevance of her actual point:


here selfishly dont care or just dont
realize for every superserious,'expert' cyclist there are
about 500 more ride occasionally types and 2000 more
recreational/sidewalk only-ers they feel dont need
to be represented in thier crazed conquest.

Why does she think anyone here doesn't care or doesn't realize that "VC high speed diferential lane grabbers are a very small percentage of total bicyclists in America"? What is the basis of her thinking that? What does she suggest should be done about that? What is this "crazed conquest"? What is the relevance of all this to this thread?

Wow, some nanny moderator deleted my reply, despite the fact that it was within the forum guidelines. I can't say that I'm surprised.



Here it is again:

"No, you do not live or ride in an area with unique traffic situations."

Let me know if I need to bust out the crayons yet again.

Sure bust out the crayons... Find me the same Weatherford Traffic Circle here in San Diego. Find the Chicago Lake Shore Drive in LA.

While the conditions may be somewhat similar, UNIQUE TRAFFIC SITUATIONS exist everywhere.

For instance, the areas you ride do not have have the population density of the areas I ride, therefore I encounter more frustrated motorists per mile than you do.



I've ridden in east county (Pine Valley), from Mission Bay to Mission Hills, from the harbor north to La Jolla, etc. I've also driven in other areas of San Diego and the roads are not unique, especially when compared to many other areas in the state.

You are claiming that my comments about you and Serge being so fearful must be because I'm not familiar with the aggressive drivers, scary streets, etc. that you two face in San Diego. That's silly.


No, I am claiming what you term as fear is just awareness and understanding of potential situations and what it takes to mitigate such situations and properly manage them. That same type of keeping your head on a fast swivel to deal with dozens of motorists at a busy 6 lane meets 6 lane intersection would not apply in say Pine Valley, were most roads are 2 lanes, and while the traffic moves fast, there is no where near the density.

Most of San Diego metro area has either WOL, or BL or multilaned roads. That's just the kind of non-unique environment that I ride in.

Right, just like wide shoulders exist all over California. :rolleyes:

Spend a few minutes in any area of town built before the mid 70s and you will see how false your statement is. Download the San Diego cycling map (http://www.ridelink.org/Commuter_Services/Biking/documents/SouthBikeMap_Web.pdf) and look at the yellow routes (other suggested routes) these tend to be just your usual narrow roads where no other alternative exists.

Over one-third of the 66 respondents to this poll so far report having been hit, clipped or knocked down by a close-passer. Over one third. That likelihood puts the possibility of this happening to any one of us in a much different league from, say, being hit by a meteorite.

Taking appropriate precautions accordingly is done out of prudence, not fear.

Sure bust out the crayons... Find me the same Weatherford Traffic Circle here in San Diego. Find the Chicago Lake Shore Drive in LA.

While the conditions may be somewhat similar, UNIQUE TRAFFIC SITUATIONS exist everywhere.

For instance, the areas you ride do not have have the population density of the areas I ride, therefore I encounter more frustrated motorists per mile than you do.
Don't be ridiculous, Gene. Peter's Contra Costa County density is almost double that of San Diego County.
The density of Concord is almost triple that of the density in the city of San Diego.

Don't be ridiculous, Gene. Peter's Contra Costa County density is almost double that of San Diego County.
The density of Concord is almost triple that of the density in the city of San Diego.

http://www.usacitiesonline.com/cacountyconcord.htm#statistics

The population of Concord is approximately 123,900 (2001).
The approximate number of families is 43,715 (1990).

The amount of land area in Concord is 76.339 sq. kilometers.


The population of San Diego is approximately 1,264,600 (2002).
The approximate number of families is 471,162 (2000).

The amount of land area in San Diego is 839.17 sq. kilometers.
The amount of land area in San Diego is 342.4 sq. miles.

Concord is 1611.23 persons per square KM, San Diego is 1506.96 persons per square KM, not hardly 3 times the density by any means. Nearly equal by the figures supplied. Of course Pete said Contra Costa County... he could be in any one of these cities: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/cities.html

And I have mentioned that the eastern areas of San Diego city, and especially the county have no where near the traffic issues (and density) of the "golden triangle area."

The heart of the matter is that the cycling environment varies from place to place... and the skills needed for one location and type of riding may be different for another area and type of riding (except the most basic of skills of course).

i think fems'

Fem? In my mind I call them 'Lem' when I'm scanning posts. But perhaps it really 'Pound-em in PA"?

Al

But maybe the judges and I are just missing something.

Thats a fair observation.
A lot of people here would agree with that too.
I will also add, you appear to be a very angry person.
Is this what unrequited conquesting does to one ?

Where in Delaware was this? (I'm assuming Delaware because of your location)

Camden, south of Dover.

Thats a fair observation.
A lot of people here would agree with that too.
I will also add, you appear to be a very angry person.
Is this what unrequited conquesting does to one ?
Yeah, that's it, I'm angry. :rolleyes:

Look. You contended that you were not allowed to present your case on two different occassions with two different judges and with respect two different situations/traffic tickets. You implied that others should expect similar results. I'm suggesting that you consider there might be a different explanation for why you got the results that you got, and that it has more to do with you and the way you present your thoughts than it has to do with the cops lying or the judges cutting you off. I made this suggestion based on impressions I got from posts you've made to this forum. You asked for examples. I couldn't immediately find any by searching. Now I did, in this thread. If you want to ignore my point and simply see this as an example of me being "angry", suit yourself. I tried. I'm done. To the OP and others, sorry for the digression.

you ARE angry, head - that your inadverdent drift/fear of overtaking traffic hyperbole isn't exactly catching on in this forum.

Your behavior continues to be based upon irrational fears.

You have also, once again, attempted to recast the discussion in a disingenuous way.

Our discussion wasn't about merely being clipped by a close passer, as you are now claiming. It was quite different, as has already been explained to you. (http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5139098&postcount=279)

You are worried about having a blowout, losing control of your bike, swerving left rather than right, just as a motorist passes too closely and you're also assuming that the motorist will not alter course to avoid the cyclist that is swerving at him.

Sheer paranoia!
You're the one who keeps talking about "a blowout, losing control of your bike, swerving left rather than right, just as a motorist passes too closely" and some phantom assumption "that the motorist will not alter course to avoid the cyclist that is swerving at him." Yes, I put the front blowout question in this poll, but only because you brought it up in another thread, and I was curious whether that actually happened to anyone here.

I brought up those examples off the top of my head for potential reasons why a cyclist in general might suddenly and unexpectedly change lateral position by a foot or two. As usual, you take that out of context and see it as the core basis for trying to avoid close passes. That's Peter's Fantasyland.

The main reason is that a motorist who is accustomed to doing something with minimal margins -- in this case regularly passing cyclists with less than about 3 feet of clearance -- is not leaving much room for error on his part or that of the cyclist. Hence over one third of the respondents of this thread report being hit, clipped or knocked over by a close-passer.

Sure if he's a couple of car lengths back when the cyclist suddenly swerves left a foot or two to avoid a previously unnoticed hazard he might have the time and space to evade the cyclist, assuming the motorist is paying attention to the cyclist at that very moment (which is probably a 50/50 proposition at best, considering by that time the motorist is probably paying more attention to stuff further ahead that he feels is more likely to be a potential hazard to him). But if he's just a few feet back of the cyclist, about to pass him, when the cyclist suddenly adjusts, there may be no time to adjust.

Anyone who does something routinely starts doing it more and more unconsciously, especially if doing it happens repeatedly without incident. So every time a driver passes a cyclist closely without incident, he's that much more likely to not pay attention to the next cyclist he passes like that. But sooner or later, it matters, but it's too late. Maybe the cyclist is unnoticed and the motorist inadvertently drifts. Maybe the cyclist drifts. Who knows? Who cares? Over one third of the respondents of this thread report being hit, clipped or knocked over by a close-passer. It's prudent to identify and use techniques and practices that address this. That's what this is about. To refer to such prudence as "irrational fear" is irrational in and of itself. Peter's Fantasyland.

http://www.usacitiesonline.com/cacountyconcord.htm#statistics

The population of Concord is approximately 123,900 (2001).
The approximate number of families is 43,715 (1990).

The amount of land area in Concord is 76.339 sq. kilometers.


The population of San Diego is approximately 1,264,600 (2002).
The approximate number of families is 471,162 (2000).

The amount of land area in San Diego is 839.17 sq. kilometers.
The amount of land area in San Diego is 342.4 sq. miles.

Concord is 1611.23 persons per square KM, San Diego is 1506.96 persons per square KM, not hardly 3 times the density by any means. Nearly equal by the figures supplied. Of course Pete said Contra Costa County... he could be in any one of these cities: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/cities.html

And I have mentioned that the eastern areas of San Diego city, and especially the county have no where near the traffic issues (and density) of the "golden triangle area."

The heart of the matter is that the cycling environment varies from place to place... and the skills needed for one location and type of riding may be different for another area and type of riding (except the most basic of skills of course).

I was just going by WIkipedia which says the density of Concord is 3,928.39/km².

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord%2C_California

In any case, it sounds like it's more or less the same, and your contention that the density is significantly higher in San Diego doesn't fly.

And bicycling in the "golden triangle" area is perhaps not for the beginner, but any experienced cyclist should have few if any issues.

No fantasyland, just the reality that you find yourself trapped in.

Nothing is being taken out of context Serge and unless you're using some bizarre Headspeak™ definition of "off the top of my head" it wasn't that casual given the mountains of words that you used to describe the situation.

After all, you're the fearful guy that needs to "control" drivers and make them "slow down and change lanes" because "cyclists can fall, swerve or suddenly leave their path at almost any time."



Serge, Serge, Serge. That's not an assumption. That's a possibility. It needs to happen for your chicken little scenario to play out the way that you describe it.



"But, still, the point is, motorists should not be comfortable passing cyclists, whether they are in bike lanes or not, within 3 feet of them. And cyclists should not be comfortable having motorists go by them that closely, just because they have a stripe of paint separating them. That front tire can blow at any moment, and that could cause you to swerve or fall to your left."

The fear is strong!



Motorists are accustomed to passing many road features, even other road users, with less than three feet of clearance Serge.

There are events and conditions that should cause motorists to take notice, slow down, and adjust lane positions.

I can taste the terror!
And I can taste the obsession :love:

Administrators... does BF have a virtual equivalent of a restraining order?

Please point to where I have taken Serge's posts out of context.

I mean, it's sweet to see you come to his defense like this so often but if you're going to make a claim like that, you should be able to back it up with some proof, right?

I'm not defending HH, just defending that which he has to say on this forum that I agree with (which isn't everything).

Some examples of you taking things out of context:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4606463&highlight=pete+context+head#post4606463
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4453978&highlight=pete+context+head#post4453978
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4453135&highlight=pete+context+head#post4453135
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4125971&highlight=pete+context+head#post4125971

Ok, I'm tired of reading old threads now.

My opinion is based upon my riding experience. Serge makes riding a bike on the road out to be a much more difficult, dangerous, and complicated activity than it actually is.

I think HH has a good middle ground approach to cycling; not just because it's middle ground but because it doesn't oversimplify or over complicate cycling and doesn't under or over stress any of the associated risks. I often hear many people oversimplifying lane position by just saying to ride "near the white line" or "3 feet from the edge of the road" or "on the sidewalk." Those approaches might cover a small section of roads but they hardly deal with what a cyclist is likely to encounter in various areas. Others over complicate cycling by preaching about how roads need bike lanes to be safe and how we need to teach motorists how to treat cyclists before cycling will ever be safe.

I think that those types of collisions are exceeding rare and I think that Serge's advice (wiggle waggling, SLOW/STOP, riding in the middle of the lane, etc.) while it perhaps assuages some of his irrational fears, is neutral at best and potentially more harmful at worst.

Potentially harmful how? By implying that cycling is unsafe? Isn't that the entire platforum used by bike lane advocates (which HH is certainly not)? Or by making cyclists use unsafe (in your opinion) lane positions?

I place it the category of a boulder rolling down the hillside and taking me out as I ride by.

Is the boulder rolling down the hill and taking out cyclists really as rare as the inadvertent drift in your mind? Is it as rare as the collisions that could have been avoided by cyclists had they just been further left?

I've yet to hear of a boulder taking out an on-road cyclist (who knows about off-road) but I read plenty of stories of inadvertent drifts and lots and lots of right hook collisions. My close calls while cycling have never been caused by riding too far left yet riding too far right has put me in a nasty situation more times than I'd like to admit (which is why I avoid it as much as possible now).

I'm done.To the OP and others, sorry for the digression.

It certainly doesnt appear that way.
Have you tried feng shui ?
Switching to decaf ??

I was just going by WIkipedia which says the density of Concord is 3,928.39/km².

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord%2C_California

In any case, it sounds like it's more or less the same, and your contention that the density is significantly higher in San Diego doesn't fly.

And bicycling in the "golden triangle" area is perhaps not for the beginner, but any experienced cyclist should have few if any issues.

The bolded statement above is exactly my point... And what I mean by different areas have different unique requirements.

The bolded statement above is exactly my point... And what I mean by different areas have different unique requirements.
Almost any suburban or urban traffic is not appropriate for beginners, Gene. The Golden Triangle area is no different. So I don't understand what you mean.

That's what I expected, no proof. Those aren't examples of me taking things out of context Joe. Perhaps you should actually read the search results rather than just searching for"context." I hope this isn't the way you intend to prepare for your "big" trial!

I did read them and I agree that you were taking things out of context in those discussions. Of course you don't agree.

We must be reading different forums. Does "Wall of Words" ring a bell?

Do lots of words scare you, Pete?

Potentially harmful by recommending practices that alienate other roads users, or are of debatable legality and hamper legitimate advocacy efforts

Alienate other road users... Are you afraid that HH is going to turn cyclists into a group that pisses off road users? Ha!

Debateable legality... You've yet to dazzle us with your understanding of the vehicle code. I've posted many times sections of various vehicle codes that clearly state that what HH advocates is perfectly legal. Just because some a-hole cop in Delaware doesn't know the laws make it's legality debateable. This same cop couldn't tell a right turn lane from a bike path.

Hamper legitimate advocacy efforts... How? Do you know have any examples of HH hampering legitmate advocacy efforts? Or are you another poster who thinks HH's WOW's keep the real good stuff from being posted in A&S (such as "cars suck" and "get out of my bike lane")?

It equally as debatable as whether cyclists (like the most recently discussed case) could have avoided being creamed if they had been a few feet to the left.

Get it?

I don't think it's equally debateable. Please find some clear cut instance of a rider in the middle of a lane not being seen by the first driver approaching him and getting plowed over. If you think cyclists don't ever ride in the middle of traffic lanes, then perhaps you need to visit more locations. Until I start seeing cyclists getting killed who were riding completely in the way of traffic with the same frequency as cyclists getting killed who were riding completely out of the way of traffic, I won't see the debate as equal.

I used to regularly get tapped in commuting during the old days. Usually a mirror. I've been bumped at low speed in traffic. But at that time I didn't give way and carried weapons.

My ex got hit on purpose.

I had an attempt on me last week, but was able to stop. Car missed by about 6" then pulled to edge of road trying to clip me. It stopped, I stopped. Good track stand. Have to get a carry permit I suppose, although my .380 weighs more than I like. Still, hydroshocks are probably more effective than .22 rounds against psychos.

I thought A&S was where angry people were supposed to hang out.

Sort of like a cage match. ;)

Do lots of words scare you, Pete?

Nope.
Nope? Only in Peter's Fantasyland!

You make me laugh the way you flail around and try to deny what you have written. Your fear of lots of words is exemplified by every single post of yours.

It must be terrifying to be you.

Nope. Those "lots of words" sure fly in the face of your "doesn't over complicate" claim though, which was my point.

You are stuck on lots of words = overcomplicate.

Nope. You do this quite a bit. Make up straw man questions and then answer those questions. It doesn't make you look smart, only petty.

It wasn't intended to be a serious restatement. Honestly, sorry for the confusion. I thought your statement was ridiculous and I was poking fun at it. The truth is, plenty of motorists (although a small percentage of the total) hate cyclists, or anything that slows them down. Riding in the way then moving over after passing traffic has noticed you probably isn't going to have much of an effect on those numbers. Just look at Portland. Tons of bike lanes getting cyclists out of the way almost all the time. Yet still motorists get pissed off when cyclists must be in the way.

Joe, neither this thread, nor my comments about legality within it are about your "big" trial. Get over your crusade about the cop already.

I only brought it up because I knew that if I didn't, you'd be the first to go post my thread to show how centerish lane position is of debateable legality. Admit it, Pete ;) Still waiting on that interpretation though.

Joe, you forgot "potentially." Yes potentially hamper legitimate advocacy efforts by riding around like a lunatic on a bike, not riding as far right as practicable because of his fear of bike lanes, etc.

And we're back to your ridiculous statement that I previously addressed (I'm assuming you are referring to motorists thinking he's a lunatic on a bike, right?). I think this is an irrational fear of yours that you should work on getting over. And again, if you understood the laws you'd realize that "as far right as practicable" doesn't even apply in most of the situations where HH is saying to ride outside of the bike lane/shoulder.

Of course it's debatable. All you have to do is read the threads that the collision spawned to see the debate.

Key word: equally. People can debate anything.

The bolded statement above is exactly my point... And what I mean by different areas have different unique requirements.

It is not as complicated as it sounds... it comes down to the needs of any cyclist to have the ability to respond to whatever situations arise and not be lulled into thinking that blanket responses will apply to all situations. In particular, Peter and some others look at your comments of riding centerish or doing "power weaving" as something you do all the time, whereas while you may attempt to default centerish, you ride for the conditions, which includes riding in Bike Lanes. Further, your techniques are perhaps more called for while riding in a location where "a more experienced cyclist" would call upon such techniques, vice a beginner who might just hug the curb. (I can't help but think of that girl in that La Jolla Village drive situation).

To further illustrate the "unique situations" issue, I am not an off road rider, and I readily admit that there are techniques for riding off road that I am not familiar with, that knowledge of would no doubt make a great difference for me if I were to ride off road.

Serge, you're grasping at straws. Even more than usual.
I'm sure it seems so when you live in Peter's Fantasyland, where you live in a delusion about your blatant and irrational fear of lots of words. Can't you hear your knees knocking against each other?

:rolleyes:

It is not as complicated as it sounds... it comes down to the needs of any cyclist to have the ability to respond to whatever situations arise and not be lulled into thinking that blanket responses will apply to all situations. In particular, Peter and some others look at your comments of riding centerish or doing "power weaving" as something you do all the time, whereas while you may attempt to default centerish, you ride for the conditions, which includes riding in Bike Lanes. Further, your techniques are perhaps more called for while riding in a location where "a more experienced cyclist" would call upon such techniques, vice a beginner who might just hug the curb. (I can't help but think of that girl in that La Jolla Village drive situation).

To further illustrate the "unique situations" issue, I am not an off road rider, and I readily admit that there are techniques for riding off road that I am not familiar with, that knowledge of would no doubt make a great difference for me if I were to ride off road.
It's doesn't sound complicated at all, but I still don't understand what you mean. What does any of the above have to do with explaining why the skill needs of riding in the golden triangle are significantly different from riding in most any other urban/suburban area, such as those in Contra Costa County?

And if you did learn to ride well off road, not only would that knowledge be helpful when riding off road, but the skills you would learn would come in handy when riding on road, and probably give you more confidence about bike handling skills, particularly in terms of moving at low speeds and evading obstacles.

But if he's just a few feet back of the cyclist, about to pass him, when the cyclist suddenly adjusts, there may be no time to adjust.

Maybe learning to ride in a straight line will help improve your safety more than lane-hogging. Keep practicing noob.