Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

First, that's like asking, how can you improve the vision of people with glasses when some might be blind? Just because some might not notice you even if you are positioned conspicuously doesn't mean there is no value with riding conspicuously.

Besides, even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist who is relevant to them, and riding where they are most likely to be paying attention is the best way to achieve relevance (though of course it does not guarantee it)...

Helmet Head,

You just don't get it about inattentional blindness. These people are looking right at something, and not seeing it, just as the pickup driver looked right at me, seemed to acknowledge me, and then drove right out in front of me. This causes "accidents," where people are injured or killed. Relevance has nothing to do with it, or there would not be these crashes. Here is what Marc Green states about it:

Item: An automobile driver looks left down a sidewalk and pulls forward into a driveway. She hears a thud, looks down and sees a bicyclist on the ground near her left front fender. The bicyclist is seriously injured.

Item: A nurse pulls a vial from a cabinet. She looks at the label, fills the syringe and then injects the patient. The patient receives the wrong drug and dies.

Item: A submarine commander looks through his periscope and sees no ships nearby. He orders the ballast blown and the submarine to surface. He then hears the clank of a ship hitting his deck and realizes that he has surfaced with another ship directly overhead. The ship overturns, killing 9 people aboard.

Item: An Eastern airline pilot and his fellow officers see a bulb flash on the control panel. They become so concerned with the cause, that they don't notice the plane approaching the ground or hear the alarm. The crash kills over 100 people.

"Inattentional Blindness"

All of these real accidents and a large number of others occur under strikingly similar circumstances: someone performing a task simply fails to see what should have been plainly visible. Afterwards, the person cannot explain the lapse.

The person making the error is likely to be held negligent. While assigning blame and deeming someone as stupid or careless might provide emotional catharsis, it does little explain why such accidents are so commonplace. Why do intelligent, diligent and thorough people so often fail to see the obvious?

The answer lies in inattentional blindness, a condition that all people exhibit periodically. As the name implies, it is the failure to see an object because attention is not focused on it. Although the phenomenon has long been known, recent evidence shows that it is much more pervasive that anyone had imagined and that it is one of the major causes of accidents and human error.

To understand how inattentional blindness occurs, it is necessary to accept a very unintuitive idea: most of our perceptual processing occurs outside of conscious awareness. Our senses are bombarded with such a large amount of input, sights, sounds, smells, etc., that our minds cannot fully process it all. The overload becomes even worse when we recall information from memory and engage in deep thought.

To cope with the problem, we have evolved a mechanism called attention, which acts as a filter that quickly examines sensory input and selects a small percentage for full processing and for conscious perception. The remaining information is lost, unnoticed and unremembered - we are inattentionally blind to it since it never reached consciousness. This all happens without our awareness, so it is not a behavior which people can bring under conscious control.

The limitations of attention are well known those of us in the field of "human factors," which examines human interaction with buildings, machines and other aspects of the environment. Many lab and real-world studies have documented the failures of human attention. There are thousands of studies that have investigated the criteria used by our attentional filter to decide what should be permitted into consciousness and what should be rejected.

This research is critical for understanding why accidents occur. Inattentional blindness causes accidents when attention mistakenly filters away important information. Learning the way attention separates the important from the unimportant is not is the first step in understanding inattentional blindness. If we understand why the lapses occur, then perhaps we can take steps to reduce them.

Research suggests that attentional blindness is affected by four factors, conspicuity, mental workload, expectation and capacity.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html
If you are right in front of someone with inattentional blindness, even riding your bike in a conspicious and relevant way, you will be hit. It's as simple as that.

John

yes, John.

A disturbing behavior I see from motorists approaching stopsigns or lights as I ride up on superior roads with the right of way is the motorist AVERTING their eyes from me as I look for signs I've still got right of way.

It's a fools game head portrays with his 'trust but verify' nonsense.

The most common reaction from motorists is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist, regardless of lane position. Second most common facial reaction? a look of extreme preturbedness. Neither of these offer verification of anything from the motorist.

Flippin' HILARIOUS! :roflmao: Head, you have admitted by inference you

a)don't ride much; and

b)must slow down, A LOT, when you ride, to get what you think is a 'verify' from motorists. what do you do, wave at them until they wave back? :rolleyes:

On my ride home tonight, I counted AT LEAST 4 instances I had no way of 'verifying' a motorist had seen me from a side street. Sure, they were stopped, I was running a BRIGHT light on flash, I was in the center of the lane, and even on the yellow stripe, and there is

no way a bicyclist can verify SQUAT about motorists.

a bicyclist doesn't get to 'verify' anything. you need to 'trust' the motorist isn't going to go when you approach their grill, head. even in the middle of the road, you have no ability to 'verify' the motorist isn't going to violate your right of way. trust? necessary to travel on a bicycle. verify? a worthless fallacy you perpetuate.

and not being overlooked even once in 2 years? You are fooling yourself and this forum about both your bicycling skill and experience. what, a half hour commute a couple of times a week during nice weather, and weekend club and 'training' rides with other LCI fumblefoots?

It's dark now at 6 p.m. in San Diego, head. on your occasional commute a half hour to and fro, what lights are you running to not be 'overlooked'? :roflmao:

Bicyclists get overlooked, head. middle of the road, middle of the lane, left crossed, right hooked, despite road position. Of course, it never happens to you. I see the glare of inexperience in your pompous, brash attitude about lane position virtually ensuring your 'visibility' while on a bicycle.

(if you've been muddling your motoring with your bicycling yet again, i can understand your confusion. how much driving this week, head?)

Agreed. There is no verification, only mitigation.

Robert

Robert, you've not answered this yet. This is the 3rd time I'm asking.

The following question is still outstanding:

Your question makes no sense. Multiple layers of cluelessness.

People might find it interesting that HHH started using the term 'default position' after he read it in my book, where I explain the benefits of riding left, even in the center of the street, whenever possible.

In the city centers, there is almost always some kind of potential hazard on the right side. You don't see many curbs in the city, you see parked cars lining all the streets. Alleys, driveways, parking lot entrances and exits, pedestrians on the loose, other cyclists darting about. Cyclists must share the road with passing vehicles at the same time they're dealing with near constant right side hazards. It's a different world and demands a different type of riding than one can use in the suburbs.

"Separate the known from the unknown, and respect the unknown. Blind corners and alley entrances, the penumbra of hulking buses and trucks -- what's back there? The world of traffic is teeming with hidden life. ... So much of what is called instinct could simply be a recognition of what is not seen and what is not known, and expecting the worst from it." (p. 110, 2nd ed.)

Robert

Helmet Head,

You just don't get it about inattentional blindness. These people are looking right at something, and not seeing it, just as the pickup driver looked right at me, seemed to acknowledge me, and then drove right out in front of me. This causes "accidents," where people are injured or killed. Relevance has nothing to do with it, or there would not be these crashes. Here is what Marc Green states about it:


If you are right in front of someone with inattentional blindness, even riding your bike in a conspicious and relevant way, you will be hit. It's as simple as that.

John
John, which part of "We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way. " do you not understand? That's from the Marc Green article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html) you cited. Is it the "much more likely" part? Or "to notice things"? Or "Which are relevant"?

Relevance has nothing to do with it? Please.

You also seem to misunderstand "inattentional blindness" to be some kind of binary state: either someone is inattentionally blind, or he is not. In reality, inattentional blindness is measured on a continuum. On one extreme is virtually being catatonic - where the person will notice absolutely nothing. On the other end is Superman/jetplane pilot ideal hyper-attention - where the person will miss absolutely nothing. The reality is that everyone is somewhere in between those two extremes. There are things we are more or less likely to notice, and one of the factors that determines the likelihood someone will notice something is how relevant that something is to that someone.

If you disagree with anything above, please let me know, because we've been over it before, I thought it was settled, and I'd let to get to the bottom of it once and for all. Thanks.

HEAD:

here's what I see as I roll up on motorists as i approach intersections:

The most common reaction from motorists is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist, regardless of lane position. Second most common facial reaction? a look of extreme annoyance. Neither of these offer verification of anything from the motorist.

Any comment? are you some type of gargantuan presence on a Pantagruelian bike to elicit a different reaction?

Most of us don't ride psychological theories on the internet, we ride bikes in traffic.

Your question makes no sense. Multiple layers of cluelessness.
Here is how it came about. I wrote:

HH: And that's the problem with pure space maximization thinking which excludes thinking about conspicuity: it depends on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it.

To which you responded:

RH: Of course it doesn't.

I took that to mean: pure space maximization thinking does not depend on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts for it. So I asked you to explain:

HH: If you've explained how pure space maximization thinking ... does not depend on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts lateral position to maximize space relative to it, either in your book or on this forum, I've missed it. Now would be a good time, if you don't mind.

Now you say that doesn't make sense. Fine. Let's back up. When you talk about "maximizing space", you're "maximizing space" relative to what, exactly? I've been assuming you're talking about maximizing space relative to hazards and potential hazards. If not, then what? If so, then how does "pure space maximization thinking" not depend on the cyclist noticing a hazard or potential hazard, and having time to react, before he adjusts lateral position to maximize space relative to it? That would imply adjusting for it before he notices it, therefore for some reason other than maximizing space for it (e.g., to maximize conspicuity). But then that wouldn't be pure space maximization thinking, would it?


People might find it interesting that HHH started using the term 'default position' after he read it in my book, where I explain the benefits of riding left, even in the center of the street, whenever possible.
Yes, Robert, "whenever possible" is how I understood and started using the term default position in this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1131770), where I explained you essentially describe the same concept as what Franklin calls "primary riding position". Later you corrected me, saying that you intended that term and associated concept to apply only in a very specific scope: "congested urban areas... with streets with lots of side traffic, pedestrians, and (classically) on-street parking". Here are your chastising words:


Sorry to gum up your arguments here, but it seems the term "default position" has been hijacked a bit in this forum.

To clarify, my hit-and-run use of the generic term "default position" and the advice to maintain a "centerish" lane position explicitly refers to cycling in congested urban areas, where 80-90% of bike-car collisions involve turning or crossing (as do all bike-ped collisions). This is a strategy specific to streets with lots of side traffic, pedestrians, and (classically) on-street parking, ...
That narrow scope hardly qualifies as recommending use of the strategy "whenever possible", but whatever.


In the city centers, there is almost always some kind of potential hazard on the right side. You don't see many curbs in the city, you see parked cars lining all the streets. Alleys, driveways, parking lot entrances and exits, pedestrians on the loose, other cyclists darting about. Cyclists must share the road with passing vehicles at the same time they're dealing with near constant right side hazards. It's a different world and demands a different type of riding than one can use in the suburbs.

"Separate the known from the unknown, and respect the unknown. Blind corners and alley entrances, the penumbra of hulking buses and trucks -- what's back there? The world of traffic is teeming with hidden life. ... So much of what is called instinct could simply be a recognition of what is not seen and what is not known, and expecting the worst from it." (p. 110, 2nd ed.)

Robert
With all due respect, that's very vague, especially since you're talking about how cyclists must share the road with passing vehicles -- which implies riding in a sharing position -- simultaneous ("at the same time") with "dealing with near constant right side hazards". When does which have priority? If there is a car approaching from behind, and you're approaching a potential hazard, like a blind alley, do you move aside, or move to a clear lane-controlling position? Or do you stay somewhere in between, ambiguously? How do you decide? To me, at least, you're not clear on any of this. As usual, in the end, your advice usually amounts to, "anything goes, as long as you're paying attention and take responsibility for anything that happens to you" (feel free to use that as a subtitle for your next edition, ;)).

So, even your limited-to-congested-urban-areas-scope "default position" strategy, which also incorporates simultaneously "dealing with near constant right side hazards", still requires the cyclist to notice a potentially hazardous situation, say a potential right-side hazard, such as one that stems from a blind alley that he is approaching, in order to have a reason to move left, especially if there is traffic approaching from behind. And any time the situation is not urban or not congested, the "default position" is not recommended at all, and, so, the cyclist must explicitly notice the hazard or potential hazard, and have time to react to it, before he can adjust for it.

HEAD:

here's what I see as I roll up on motorists as i approach intersections:

The most common reaction from motorists is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist, regardless of lane position. Second most common facial reaction? a look of extreme annoyance. Neither of these offer verification of anything from the motorist.

Any comment? are you some type of gargantuan presence on a Pantagruelian bike to elicit a different reaction?

My comment? All of that is very reminiscent of the type of experiences I used to have regularly before I adopted vc best practices in my riding. And this cannot be overstressed: it is amazing what a HUGE difference in treatment even very subtle and seemingly irrelevant adjustments in lateral position and cyclist's body language can make in this respect.

In order to act like a driver of a vehicle, with equal rights to the road, you have to feel like a driver of a vehicle; you have to see yourself as one. Only then will the behavior follow. If you fake it, they can tell. Not that they're looking for it; it's instinctual. They can sense if you feel like you're in your own element, where you belong, or if you feel out of place (scurrying around uncomfortably and hurriedly, like a rat on the kitchen floor, to borrow from the analogy on the back of Robert's book again), and will treat you accordingly.

:roflmao:

in other words, fool yourself with psychobabble, head.

head, your delusion is legendary on this forum. I can't believe your grandiose, aggrandizing prattle.

HEAD, I ride. Everyday. In traffic, more assertively than you. here's what I see as I roll up on motorists as i approach intersections, my road position doesn't matter:

The most common reaction from motorists is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist, regardless of lane position. Second most common facial reaction? a look of extreme annoyance. Neither of these offer verification of anything from the motorist.

What do you get?

Helmet Head,

You just don't get it about inattentional blindness. These people are looking right at something, and not seeing it, just as the pickup driver looked right at me, seemed to acknowledge me, and then drove right out in front of me. This causes "accidents," where people are injured or killed. Relevance has nothing to do with it, or there would not be these crashes. Here is what Marc Green states about it:


If you are right in front of someone with inattentional blindness, even riding your bike in a conspicious and relevant way, you will be hit. It's as simple as that.

John

John, which part of "We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way. " do you not understand? That's from the Marc Green article (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html) you cited. Is it the "much more likely" part? Or "to notice things"? Or "Which are relevant"?

Relevance has nothing to do with it? Please.

You also seem to misunderstand "inattentional blindness" to be some kind of binary state: either someone is inattentionally blind, or he is not. In reality, inattentional blindness is measured on a continuum. On one extreme is virtually being catatonic - where the person will notice absolutely nothing. On the other end is Superman/jetplane pilot ideal hyper-attention - where the person will miss absolutely nothing. The reality is that everyone is somewhere in between those two extremes. There are things we are more or less likely to notice, and one of the factors that determines the likelihood someone will notice something is how relevant that something is to that someone.

If you disagree with anything above, please let me know, because we've been over it before, I thought it was settled, and I'd let to get to the bottom of it once and for all. Thanks.
HH,

You are taking a very egocentric view of this "relevant" circumstance. It is in the eye of the perceiver, not the person/thing being perceived. As the object who wishes to be perceived, we can do a lot be be visible, or conspicuous. But all our trying will not help if the person doing the perceiving is in a state of inattentional blindness. This is because it is what is relevant to him/her at that point in time, not what we do, which makes the difference. You quote a small part of this article to make your point above, not the idea of the article. Contrary to what you say above, there are no gradients of inattentional blindness. What is seen is ignored. That is probably why you did not quote this from that same article:
Errors often occur when there is a new and unusual combination of circumstances in a highly familiar circumstance. The driver who hit the bicyclist had pulled into the same driveway every workday for a year and had never seen anyone. She had unconsciously learned that there wasn't anything important to see down the sidewalk. The submarine captain had learned that if there were no blips on the sonar, then there should be no ships in view. The nurse was used to picking out the same size and shape bottle that contained a different drug.
I have been trained in the US Air Force as a scanner. We used scanning techniques to observe from search planes. But we still had to contend with our own minds, and sometimes override what our minds did or did not tell us about what we were watching. Even at that, things get missed that are obvious.

In that same article, Marc Green discusses a strategy of the British police force to increase their conspicuity factor by using highly visible patterns on their police cars. To their consternation, "...the rate of these accidents actually increased." What you think is relevant may not be to the person you are trying to influence. If an ambulance driver cannot see a pickup truck coming, would he see a bicycle? I don't think so, as the pickup-ambulance accident was a fatal one.

John

You also seem to misunderstand "inattentional blindness" to be some kind of binary state: either someone is inattentionally blind, or he is not. In reality, inattentional blindness is measured on a continuum. On one extreme is virtually being catatonic - where the person will notice absolutely nothing. On the other end is Superman/jetplane pilot ideal hyper-attention - where the person will miss absolutely nothing. The reality is that everyone is somewhere in between those two extremes. There are things we are more or less likely to notice, and one of the factors that determines the likelihood someone will notice something is how relevant that something is to that someone.


You know, if you research the history of jet plane pilots you will find numerous examples of crew flying perfectly good aircraft into terrain. And very many cases of the aircraft actively warning the crew not to do what caused the accident. You would think that keeping the aircraft in the air would be highly relevant to the crew, yet there are continued examples of people failing to heed the old adage, 'aviate, navigate, communicate'. These people operate in a highly structured, team oriented, and redundant environment - yet still fail in a somewhat predictable manner.

Aviation provides examples pointing to a conclusion that you cannot count on people to process information consistently or even rationally, and therefore the consideration of binary vs. continuum is rendered moot. Or, in other words, it is nearly impossible to predict what another person considers relevant at any given time.

You know, if you research the history of jet plane pilots you will find numerous examples of crew flying perfectly good aircraft into terrain. And very many cases of the aircraft actively warning the crew not to do what caused the accident. You would think that keeping the aircraft in the air would be highly relevant to the crew, yet there are continued examples of people failing to heed the old adage, 'aviate, navigate, communicate'. These people operate in a highly structured, team oriented, and redundant environment - yet still fail in a somewhat predictable manner.

Aviation provides examples pointing to a conclusion that you cannot count on people to process information consistently or even rationally, and therefore the consideration of binary vs. continuum is rendered moot. Or, in other words, it is nearly impossible to predict what another person considers relevant at any given time.
I understand that jet fighter pilots are humans and subject to inattentional blindness too.
I understand it is nearly impossible to predict what another person considers relevant at any given time.

I am talking about likelihood of being noticed in general.

HEAD:

Approaching intersections, regardless of lane position, the most common reaction from motorists is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist. Second most common facial reaction? a look of extreme annoyance.

What do you get?

I am talking about likelihood of being noticed in general.

...by attempting to beat Robert to death over the specific details of on particular, non-general incident.

...by attempting to beat Robert to death over the specific details of one particular, non-general incident.


:beer::beer::beer:

He just can't see the forest for the trees...

HH,

You are taking a very egocentric view of this "relevant" circumstance.
John,

You may very well have a good point, but it is very hard for me to decipher it when you frame it in nonsensical statements. In your previous post you quoted from an article on IA and wrote that "relevance has nothing to do with it". So I pointed out the section in that article that stated otherwise. You seem to think that I'm being unreasonable, and you start with the above statement. Egocentric view? How is my view egocentric? Nothing I wrote was about me personally. To the contrary, I'm writing totally from the objective/general perspective. I have no idea what makes you think the view I am taking is egocentric, but I'm fairly confident you don't know either. That is, you will probably gloss over this and never respond to it, much less show me the actual words that I wrote that would justify such a claim. And then you also write, "this 'relevant' circumstance". Here again I am mystified: by "this", what circumstance are you referring to? I have no idea. Do you? Will you explain? I doubt it. You will probably gloss over it, just as you did your assertion that "relevance has nothing to do with it", and how will probably do with your "egocentric view" reference. It's impossible to have a discussion in which actual meaning is conveyed like this.


It is in the eye of the perceiver, not the person/thing being perceived. As the object who wishes to be perceived, we can do a lot be be visible, or conspicuous.

My one and only point, thank you. And riding conspicuously (that is, in a position that is more likely, not guaranteed, to be noticed, because it's riding in space that is more likely to be considered relevant to drivers) is one of the things we can do to be visible, or conspicuous.


But all our trying will not help if the person doing the perceiving is in a state of inattentional blindness.

In some rare cases, of course. So what? Nothing I've said is contrary to that. Back to the continuum. From some people in some cases, they'll notice us even if we're riding in black up on the sidewalk. Others won't notice us no matter what. The vast majority are probably some where in between.


This is because it is what is relevant to him/her at that point in time, not what we do, which makes the difference.

Yes, but don't you agree that if you choose ten thousand drivers at random, that to some the margin space in front of them will be relevant, but to most if not all of them the space directly in front of them will be relevant?


You quote a small part of this article to make your point above, not the idea of the article.

I quoted as much as I needed to quote to refute your ridiculous claim that "relevance has nothing to do with it". It is only on that one point that I know we have disagreement (unless you've conceded it - in which I find myself in an eerily similar position to the one I was in with your son a few days ago - who was antagonistic in tone but in agreement in substance).


Contrary to what you say above, there are no gradients of inattentional blindness. What is seen is ignored.
Just because things that are seen are not noticed does not show that there are no gradients in IB. Someone with IB might not notice one thing, but will amost certainly notice something else. It's not like suddenly you're in a state of IB and you notice nothing.


That is probably why you did not quote this from that same article:

Again, I only quoted what I needed to quote to refute your ridiculous claim. As to this quote:


Errors often occur when there is a new and unusual combination of circumstances in a highly familiar circumstance. The driver who hit the bicyclist had pulled into the same driveway every workday for a year and had never seen anyone. She had unconsciously learned that there wasn't anything important to see down the sidewalk. The submarine captain had learned that if there were no blips on the sonar, then there should be no ships in view. The nurse was used to picking out the same size and shape bottle that contained a different drug.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but this passage supports everything I've ever written about IB, and refutes nothing I've ever said about IB. With reference to the discussion about Robert's incident, the point about the cyclist is perhaps most relevant here. Like her, Robert had probably "unconsciously learned that there wasn't anything important to see down the" blind alley, because of the thousands of times he had ridden by it without incident. So when he noticed a car approaching from behind, still a ways back, he moved aside, despite the fact that he was approaching the junction with the blind alley. He had not realized the hazard of the blind alley he was approaching. And because his pure space maximization strategy depends on him noticing a hazard or potential hazard before he adjusts for it, he moved aside. Had he adopted a habit based on the vc strategy of using destination positioning at all intersection/junction approaches, he would have not done that, or at least not done that without recognizing the compromise he was choosing, and putting himself on heightened alert as a result.


I have been trained in the US Air Force as a scanner. We used scanning techniques to observe from search planes. But we still had to contend with our own minds, and sometimes override what our minds did or did not tell us about what we were watching. Even at that, things get missed that are obvious.

Exactly.


In that same article, Marc Green discusses a strategy of the British police force to increase their conspicuity factor by using highly visible patterns on their police cars. To their consternation, "...the rate of these accidents actually increased." What you think is relevant may not be to the person you are trying to influence. If an ambulance driver cannot see a pickup truck coming, would he see a bicycle? I don't think so, as the pickup-ambulance accident was a fatal one.

I have no idea what you think you're trying to tell me that I don't already understand. But, again, I'm pretty sure you won't be able to explain what that is either.

But it seems to me that all you're saying is that conspicuous positioning increases the likelihood of being noticed, but does not guarantee being noticed. I'm sorry, but duh is the only reasonable response to that.

...by attempting to beat Robert to death over the specific details of on particular, non-general incident.
It is an incident that Robert himself chose to illustrate his general idea. I'm simply using the same incident to illustrate my general idea.

Robert's whole point is (paraphrasing): this is the type of thing that will happen to you if you don't pay 100% attention all the time.

My whole point is: You're human, so you can't pay 100% attention all the time. That's why this type of thing is more likely to happen to you if you use Robert's pure space maximization strategy that relies solely on paying attention. It's obviously not good enough for Robert, and it's not good enough for any human. Using a default centerish position, for the sake of being more conspicuous (or whatever reason actually works for you), in addition to trying to pay as much attention as you can (which should go without saying), even in riding environments that are not congested and urban
, is better, because it is likely to give you a little bit more conspicuity, space and sight lines when you need it most: a critical moment when you're distracted and so didn't even yet realize you need the additional conspicuity, space and/or sight lines.


* According to Robert, the only environment in which he recommends using the default centerish position is the "congested urban" one:



Sorry to gum up your arguments here, but it seems the term "default position" has been hijacked a bit in this forum.

To clarify, my hit-and-run use of the generic term "default position" and the advice to maintain a "centerish" lane position explicitly refers to cycling in congested urban areas, where 80-90% of bike-car collisions involve turning or crossing (as do all bike-ped collisions). This is a strategy specific to streets with lots of side traffic, pedestrians, and (classically) on-street parking, and is to be heavily modified around overtaking vehicles (pp. 75-77).

HEAD:

Approaching intersections, regardless of lane position, the most common reaction from motorists is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist. Second most common facial reaction? a look of extreme annoyance.

What do you get?
All of that is very reminiscent of the type of experiences I used to have regularly before I adopted vc best practices in my riding. And this cannot be overstressed: it is amazing what a HUGE difference in treatment even very subtle and seemingly irrelevant adjustments in lateral position and cyclist's body language can make in this respect.

As long as you continue to see yourself as an out of place rat when you're riding in the road that you feel is not designed with you in mind, Beck, drivers will continue to sense that, and will treat you accordingly. They will glance right through you with averted eyes. They will scowl at you with extreme annoyance.

In order to act like a driver of a vehicle, with equal rights to the road, you have to feel like a driver of a vehicle; you have to see yourself as one. Only then will the behavior follow. If you fake it, they can tell. Not that they're looking for it; it's instinctual. They can sense if you feel like you're in your own element, where you belong, or if you feel out of place (scurrying around uncomfortably and hurriedly, like a rat on the kitchen floor, to borrow from the analogy on the back of Robert's book again), and will treat you accordingly.

I'm not saying I never get that type of treatment any more, but it's changed from a few times a week to a few times a year. Now, smiles, waves and nods are much, much more common.

"smiles, waves, and nods?"

Ludicrous posturing from your armchair. HILARIOUS!

In order to act like a driver of a vehicle, with equal rights to the road, you have to feel like a driver of a vehicle; you have to see yourself as one. Only then will the behavior follow. If you fake it, they can tell.


Strange, I get MORE honks, buzzes, gestures, and looks of extreme annoyance when I drive my car then when I ride my bike (being encased in metal I worry much less about it though).

I must be driving like a cyclist and cycling like a driver.

Or maybe I'm just faking it.

Strange, I get MORE honks, buzzes, gestures, and looks of extreme annoyance when I drive my car then when I ride my bike (being encased in metal I worry much less about it though).

I must be driving like a cyclist and cycling like a driver.

Or maybe I'm just faking it.
Yes, if you act like a vehicle driver while riding your bike, the bike can actually become an advantage in terms of how you're treated. I don't get many honks while driving a car either, but I sure get a lot more waves, smiles, nods and "thumb's up" when cycling than when driving a car.

Yes, if you act like a vehicle driver while riding your bike, the bike can actually become an advantage in terms of how you're treated.

Vehicle drivers here act in any way they please, so I am not sure what this means.

Vehicle drivers here act in any way they please, so I am not sure what this means.
Acting like a vehicle driver means acting in accordance with the basic principles of vehicular traffic flow that underlie the rules of the road in all of the western world, and most of the rest of it. It means not acting in accordance with the pedestrian rules, or no rules.

what a worthless soapbox this thread has turned into. what naivete you exhibit about the supposed powers of lane position and 'panache' to turn motorists into waving, smiling road users.

HILARIOUS. :roflmao:I laugh in your general direction, head.:roflmao:

All of that is very reminiscent of the type of experiences I used to have regularly before I adopted vc best practices in my riding.

I'm not saying I never get that type of treatment any more, but it's changed from a few times a week to a few times a year. Now, smiles, waves and nods are much, much more common.

Well, that's great to hear that you get more smiles, waves and nods now than negative treatment. I'm sure it's true for you, but I'm a bit skeptical since stating anything to the contrary would be bad public relations for the VC cause.

[Quote=JHH,

You are taking a very egocentric view of this "relevant" circumstance.
John C. Ratliff

John,

You may very well have a good point, but it is very hard for me to decipher it when you frame it in nonsensical statements. In your previous post you quoted from an article on IA and wrote that "relevance has nothing to do with it". So I pointed out the section in that article that stated otherwise. You seem to think that I'm being unreasonable, and you start with the above statement. Egocentric view? How is my view egocentric? Nothing I wrote was about me personally. To the contrary, I'm writing totally from the objective/general perspective. I have no idea what makes you think the view I am taking is egocentric, but I'm fairly confident you don't know either. That is, you will probably gloss over this and never respond to it, much less show me the actual words that I wrote that would justify such a claim. And then you also write, "this 'relevant' circumstance". Here again I am mystified: by "this", what circumstance are you referring to? I have no idea. Do you? Will you explain? I doubt it. You will probably gloss over it, just as you did your assertion that "relevance has nothing to do with it", and how will probably do with your "egocentric view" reference. It's impossible to have a discussion in which actual meaning is conveyed like this...[/QUOTE]
Well, you've done it again, and for the time being, I will ignore the rest of the post. The reason is not that I cannot answer, but I have studies which are more important, and have been answering school kid's questions that they send me about Vietnam. It's almost Veteran's Day, and I'd like to give them some attention too. So you are somewhat lower on this priority level.

Now, let's see, you were asking about what it is you are saying that is "egocentric"? This adjetive dates back to 1894, and here's what Merriam-Webster OnLine says about its definition:
egocentric

Main Entry:
ego·cen·tric Listen to the pronunciation of egocentric
Pronunciation:
\ˌē-gō-ˈsen-trik also ˌe-\
Function:
adjective
Date: 1894
1: concerned with the individual rather than society
2: taking the ego as the starting point in philosophy
3 a: limited in outlook or concern to one's own activities or needs b: self-centered, selfish
— egocentric noun
— ego·cen·tri·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of egocentrically \-tri-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— ego·cen·tric·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of egocentricity \-ˌsen-ˈtri-sə-tē\ noun
— ego·cen·trism Listen to the pronunciation of egocentrism \-ˈsen-ˌtri-zəm\ noun
You were probably thinking in terms of either definition 1 or 2, while I was thinking of definition 3. You are definitely "limited in outlook or concern to one's own activities or needs." You only mention your positioning as being "relevant" to the driver. In most cases that is true. But in inattentional blindness, that is not, and it is this that we are talking about. From your perspective, you are relevant to the driver, especially if you put yourself potentially at risk by being in the path of the vehicle that is behind you (never mind that, at least in Oregon, that is illegal for a bicycle). What you ignore is that for those in a state of "inattentional blindness," you don't even register.

"This" relevant circumstance is the relevant circumstances of the driver, not you. It has to do with the coffee or coke he/she just spilled all over his front-side, or the cell phone call (we had a SUV run off the bridge in downtown Portland, Oregon, over the guard rail, while talking on a cell phone), the kids in the back seat (hopefully), or the girl friend/wife/significant other that he/she just broke up with. Again, you don't register on these people's concerns.

We are not talking about normal drivers here, but the distracted, inattentionally blind driver. In the USAF, the fighter pilots you touted above sometimes got what was called in the Vietnam War "target fixation," which is another name for inattentional blindness. I heard of one pilot who was so fixated on delivering a bomb right into a mountainside tunnel that he flew his F-4 into that mountainside! Now, was the mountain relevant to his survival? Yes. Was he paying attention to it's relevance? No, and he died.

Now, you can take these posts and dissect them all you want. But your own "inattentional blindness" is in looking at words, partial sentences, fragments of thought, and trying to see them apart from the totality of their meaning as a paragraph. A mountain is in front of you, and you are looking at the trees, trying to discern what they are telling you, while ignoring the mountain.

John

Acting like a vehicle driver means acting in accordance with the basic principles of vehicular traffic flow that underlie the rules of the road in all of the western world, and most of the rest of it.

I see little evidence that drivers of vehicles act like that when it doesn't suit their desired speed of travel.

For instance the principle might be "slower traffic keeps right". Driving on my local 4-lane arterials, I see about an equal amount of passing on the left and the right.

and speeding ,running red lights and tailgating those that don't exceed the speed limit.

none of this has any bearing on heads' fantasies of eliciting motorists' feelgood vibes when he's in the lane.

The most common reaction by motorists to a bicyclist as they approach an intersection, regardless of road position or assertiveness, is the averted eyes glance right thru the bicyclist.

motorists can't see self-delusional 'panache' thru the windshield, methinks.

They are NOT smiling and waving at bicyclists taking the lane. What a joke. :rolleyes:

I see little evidence that drivers of vehicles act like that when it doesn't suit their desired speed of travel.

For instance the principle might be "slower traffic keeps right". Driving on my local 4-lane arterials, I see about an equal amount of passing on the left and the right.
I have no dispute with this.

You asked what I meant by "acting like a vehicle driver". I told you.
It does not mean "acting like a typical driver of a vehicle", which is what you seem to be thinking.

What I mean by "acting like a vehicle driver" means operating in accordance with the underlying principles of vehicular traffic. Whether doing that is typical of motorist behavior is irrelevant to what I mean by it.

You know, after a couple of drinks everybody seems a lot more smiley and wavy, plus I have a lot more panache myself, so maybe that's what's really going on.

Well, that's great to hear that you get more smiles, waves and nods now than negative treatment. I'm sure it's true for you, but I'm a bit skeptical since stating anything to the contrary would be bad public relations for the VC cause.
If it weren't true, what reason would I have to advocate VC?

The effectivity of vehicular cycling best practices is the only reason I, for one, would advocate them, and I can't think of any other reason for me or anyone else to promote them.

Now, you can take these posts and dissect them all you want. But your own "inattentional blindness" is in looking at words, partial sentences, fragments of thought, and trying to see them apart from the totality of their meaning as a paragraph. A mountain is in front of you, and you are looking at the trees, trying to discern what they are telling you, while ignoring the mountain.

John
John,

I'm sure you have something to convey to me, and I genuinely want to understand what that is. To attempt to do that, I read and reread your posts, and just don't get it. So what I try to do is explain what I'm understanding, and what I'm not understanding, and why. I'm sorry that feels like "dissection" to you, and trying to see fragments apart from the totality of their meaning. I try not to do that, and even say as much in my signature. To the contrary, I try to understand the meaning of your words within the context of the total post, and the discussion. But I'm often stumped, and all I can think to do is explain why I'm stumped as best as I can. But that seems to make things even more confusing. So let's back up.

What is it that you're trying to tell me? What is the "mountain"? Is it that what is relevant to one person, or even to many or most people, does not mean it will be necessarily relevant to everyone? If so, why do you feel compelled to state something so obvious to me? What did I write that made you think I didn't understand something so elementary? Please be specific, because it would really help me to know what I write that leads others to misunderstand me so fundamentally. If it's not that, but something else, what is it?

John,

I'm sure you have something to convey to me, and I genuinely want to understand what that is. To attempt to do that, I read and reread your posts, and just don't get it. So what I try to do is explain what I'm understanding, and what I'm not understanding, and why. I'm sorry that feels like "dissection" to you, and trying to see fragments apart from the totality of their meaning. I try not to do that, and even say as much in my signature. To the contrary, I try to understand the meaning of your words within the context of the total post, and the discussion. But I'm often stumped, and all I can think to do is explain why I'm stumped as best as I can. But that seems to make things even more confusing. So let's back up.

What is it that you're trying to tell me? What is the "mountain"? Is it that what is relevant to one person, or even to many or most people, does not mean it will be necessarily relevant to everyone? If so, why do you feel compelled to state something so obvious to me? What did I write that made you think I didn't understand something so elementary? Please be specific, because it would really help me to know what I write that leads others to misunderstand me so fundamentally. If it's not that, but something else, what is it?
Okay HH,

We'll take a bit of a different route on this. First, would you please stop using Robert's "incident" in your posts. Let's use new examples, so we can get beyond that. It seems that this is what you've been talking about for six months, and it is a bit old right now.

Here's in a nutshell what I'm trying to get across to you--your destination positioning may work for 99.97% of the people on the road. But that means of 10,000 cars-bicycle interactions, there are three it doesn't work for. It's those three that I'm worried about, but you dismiss. It really doesn't matter whether you are right in front of a car or 10 degrees off to the side--if you are visible, you will be seen by those 9,997 drivers. But for the other three, there could be a problem. More later...

John

Okay HH,

We'll take a bit of a different route on this. First, would you please stop using Robert's "incident" in your posts. Let's use new examples, so we can get beyond that. It seems that this is what you've been talking about for six months, and it is a bit old right now.

Here's in a nutshell what I'm trying to get across to you--your destination positioning may work for 99.97% of the people on the road. But that means of 10,000 cars-bicycle interactions, there are three it doesn't work for. It's those three that I'm worried about, but you dismiss. It really doesn't matter whether you are right in front of a car or 10 degrees off to the side--if you are visible, you will be seen by those 9,997 drivers. But for the other three, there could be a problem. More later...

John
What have I written that has caused you to think that I dismiss those three, or, more generally, that I dismiss the possibility of being overlooked by a tiny percentage of the motorists? Again, it would help me to know what I have written so as to cause such a fundamental misunderstanding in what I intended to convey. Thanks.

The whole point of conspicuity in traffic cycling is to mitigate the threat posed by being overlooked - not to eliminate it (because that is practically impossible, of course). This is true of using bright clothing, proper lighting at night, and conspicuous lane positioning ("visible and predictable").

What have I written that has caused you to think that I dismiss those three, or, more generally, that I dismiss the possibility of being overlooked by a tiny percentage of the motorists? Again, it would help me to know what I have written so as to cause such a fundamental misunderstanding in what I intended to convey. Thanks.

The whole point of conspicuity in traffic cycling is to mitigate the threat posed by being overlooked - not to eliminate it (because that is practically impossible, of course). This is true of using bright clothing, proper lighting at night, and conspicuous lane positioning ("visible and predictable").

Okay, HH, here is one quote:

First, that's like asking, how can you improve the vision of people with glasses when some might be blind? Just because some might not notice you even if you are positioned conspicuously doesn't mean there is no value with riding conspicuously.

Besides, even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist who is relevant to them, and riding where they are most likely to be paying attention is the best way to achieve relevance (though of course it does not guarantee it).

Actually, you have no way of influencing what is relevant to the driver with inattentional blindness. That person is blind to what is not at that particular time "relevant" to him or her. You can be a life-threatening force, obvious to anyone else, and not be perceived by this individual. There is no continuum in this circumstance. That happens with people in normal perceptions, but not inattentional blindness.

John

Okay, HH, here is one quote:

Besides, even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist who is relevant to them, and riding where they are most likely to be paying attention is the best way to achieve relevance (though of course it does not guarantee it).


Actually, you have no way of influencing what is relevant to the driver with inattentional blindness. That person is blind to what is not at that particular time "relevant" to him or her. You can be a life-threatening force, obvious to anyone else, and not be perceived by this individual. There is no continuum in this circumstance. That happens with people in normal perceptions, but not inattentional blindness.

John
The continuum I wrote of was with respect to inattentional blindness in general, not with respect to a particular circumstance of IB. The particular circumstances of which you speak I addressed with the words in parenthesis, though of course it does not guarantee it. Perhaps more clarification would have been helpful:

Besides, even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist who is relevant to them, and riding where they are most likely to be paying attention is the best way to achieve relevance (though of course it does not guarantee it, because in some rare cases the IB is so severe that there may be nothing the cyclist can do to be noticed).

Consider the following almost identical statements:

Even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist whose sensory conspicuity is maximized by wearing bright clothing (though of course it does not guarantee it).
Even those with inattention blindness are more likely to notice a cyclist at night who is using proper lighting at night (though of course it does not guarantee it).Do you have as much issue with these statements?

Earlier, you chose an arbitrary percentage, 99.97%, in order to illustrate a point: "that means of 10,000 cars-bicycle interactions, there are three it doesn't work for". There is no scientific basis for this number, but apparently you feel that 99.97% is a realistic and reasonable guess, but even it's way off, maybe by an order of magnitude or more, in either direction, it still makes your point. I have no objection to such use of rhetoric to illustrate a point. Please allow me to use the same rhetorical technique to illustrate mine.

Consider a cyclist dressed in black riding in the pitch black darkness. Hurst writes about cyclists who do this on purpose and refers this style as "invisible cycling". I think he pays homage to this style, but that's neither here nor there. But he notes that such cyclists actually sometimes feel hindered when they are noticed for they rely on not being noticed and drivers acting accordingly. When the drivers notice the invisible cyclist, and change their behavior (say by slowing down for them), they alter the invisible cyclist's planned behavior. This is similar to the frustration cyclists sometimes express for the situation where they look back and an overtaking motorist slows down as a result, when what the cyclist wanted was for the motorist to just continue so the cyclist could cross the road without affecting anyone else. The invisible cycling style depends on these type of interactions of not being noticed: being noticed is the exception they try to avoid.

Now, what percentage of motorists notice invisible cyclists despite all their efforts for that not to happen? .5%? 1%? 10%? 20%? Like your 99.97%, for our purposes the actual percentage does not matter, as long as we choose one that we agree is a realistic and reasonable guess. Let's choose 1%, okay? That means for every 10,000 motorists an invisible cyclist encounters, 100 notice him, but 9,900 do not. Fair enough?

Now consider the same "invisible cyclist" -- dark clothing, no lighting -- riding during the day, in the road margin. What percentage of motorists do you think will notice him? And I'm not just talking about the overtaking motorists - also the motorists in oncoming traffic, and the motorists up ahead contemplating entering or crossing the roadway from either side. Is this percentage 50%? 60%? 70%? 90%? We don't know. Bare with me as we pick 60%, again arbitrarily. That means about 6,000 out of 10,000 motorists will notice him, and he is about 600 times more likely to be noticed than he is when riding in the dark.

Now take the same cyclist except put bright clothing on him. What does that do to the likelihood that he is noticed? I assume we agree that it improves this likelihood. Shall we say it improves the likelihood from 60% to 80%?

Now take the cyclist, during the day, still in dark clothing (with 60% noticing him), and move him out of the margin and into the lane. What does that do to his likelihood? Based on my experience (I have a warm black jacket that I wear on relatively cold (for San Diego) days, that number is way above 99.9%. Say 99.90%. Whatever that number is, if it's improved even more by bright clothing, it's a very marginal improvement, hardly noticable. Say 99.97%.

Now, whether you're an invisible cyclist riding at night with the vast majority not noticing you, are you are conspicuously positioned in bright clothing during the day, you still have to account for those drivers who will not notice you at all. But how much your riding will depend on them not noticing will vary.

your insistence in your naive assumptions about lane position assuring 99.9 percent noticability are astounding, head.

good on you if that's what you think, but you are out to lunch. Why are you wearing a black jacket for cycling in the winter? what a newbie. Bright clothing has a greater effect on overall cyclist visibility than lane position, newbie.

Seems to me that if you are not noticed by those with inattention blindness and you are on the side of the road, you are already out of the potential collision path... whereas if you are not noticed by those with inattention blindness and you are in the middle of the road... you are right in the collision path.

So even if the odds are 99.990%... if you chose to ride default centerish, at some point you have a chance of meeting that .001% of motorist quite directly.

Now granted, there are times when you have no choice but to ride centered... There are other times when there is little need to ride default centered.

Oh wait, I nearly forgot... you expect cyclists to be aware of approaching motorists... and move out of the way in the presence of FSDT. So essentially while you admit that motorists have inattention blindness from time to time, you expect cyclists to have the super human ability to always glance backwards at a mirror, gauge the approaching traffic and then move out of the way... and never should a cyclist fall prey to their own inattention blindness...

your insistence in your naive assumptions about lane position assuring 99.9 percent noticability are astounding, head.
Beck, I encounter hundreds of motorists per days. Days, weeks and even months go by without a single incident of me being overlooked. 99.9% is only 999 out of 1000. It's probably over 99,990 out of 100,000 that notice me, which is more than 99.99%.


good on you if that's what you think, but you are out to lunch. Why are you wearing a black jacket for cycling in the winter? what a newbie. Bright clothing has a greater effect on overall cyclist visibility than lane position, newbie.
If I had any practical issues with not being noticed, I wouldn't wear it, Beck.
The only problem I have with my black jacket and being noticed is at night, especially when wearing my black gloves. They have trouble seeing my arm signals. That's why at night I always wear my bright yellow rain jacket.

^^^
You ride a bicycle in traffic with a black jacket, HH? That's dumb. For something to be noticed, it must first be seen. What a simple error, and such a simple error to correct.

A little anecdote for you. I was riding behind my father one day; we were working at different places but our commute routes were on the same road and I was catching up to him. Bright sunlight, but he was wearing a dark green shirt against a backdrop of healthy, green vegetation. I actually had him passing in and out of my vision, due to his camouflage. It is not that people cannot see you, it is that it takes them longer for you to come into their vision, regardless of your road position. At some point, if you ride enough, those extra 10 seconds that you buy yourself with brightly colored clothing might come in handy.

^^^
You ride a bicycle in traffic with a black jacket, HH? That's dumb. For something to be noticed, it must first be seen. What a simple error, and such a simple error to correct.

A little anecdote for you. I was riding behind my father one day; we were working at different places but our commute routes were on the same road and I was catching up to him. Bright sunlight, but he was wearing a dark green shirt against a backdrop of healthy, green vegetation. I actually had him passing in and out of my vision, due to his camouflage. It is not that people cannot see you, it is that it takes them longer for you to come into their vision, regardless of your road position. At some point, if you ride enough, those extra 10 seconds that you buy yourself with brightly colored clothing might come in handy.

Actually single color clothing can be obscured by a similar colored background... so even "safety yellow" may disappear against a background of bright green lawn or bushes. This is one reason why multicolored jerseys may actually be safer than a simple "safety jacket."

Seems to me that if you are not noticed by those with inattention blindness and you are on the side of the road, you are already out of the potential collision path... whereas if you are not noticed by those with inattention blindness and you are in the middle of the road... you are right in the collision path.

So even if the odds are 99.990%... if you chose to ride default centerish, at some point you have a chance of meeting that .001% of motorist quite directly.
Well, I honestly think the odds of not being noticed from behind, when riding centerish, are even much lower than .001%. But whatever it is, it's non-zero. But, then, so are the odds of being hit by a meteor. Never-the-less, one of the reasons I maintain rearward situational awareness with a mirror is because of this slight likelihood.


Now granted, there are times when you have no choice but to ride centered... There are other times when there is little need to ride default centered.
Indeed, that is the approach Robert Hurst advocates and what he promotes in his book. And I know you all hate me bringing up the Mercedes incident, but that example really shows the problem with this approach: it depends on the cyclist noticing whether there is "significant enough need" to ride centered, and the cyclist is not infallible. What inevitably results is the cyclist is too far right in a situation (such as the Mercedes incident, or the many examples such as those referenced in the bike lane deaths thread) where not being conspicuously positioned (not to mention not having the improved sight lines and maximized buffer space of being further left), with respect to hazards in front of him, and, as a result, his safety is significantly compromised.


Oh wait, I nearly forgot... you expect cyclists to be aware of approaching motorists... and move out of the way in the presence of FSDT. So essentially while you admit that motorists have inattention blindness from time to time, you expect cyclists to have the super human ability to always glance backwards at a mirror, gauge the approaching traffic and then move out of the way... and never should a cyclist fall prey to their own inattention blindness...
What I'm saying is

that the odds of a given motorist not noticing a cyclist ahead of him in his path is extremely low, on the order of 1 in 10,000, or less;
that the odds of a cyclist using a mirror (on top of using hearing) to establish and maintain rearward situational awareness, not noticing a motorist approaching from behind is also very low, say 1 in 1000 (.001);
and that the product of those already extremely low probabilities is much lower even still (.00001 * .001 = .00000001),
while the probability of a cyclist (who does not default centerish) riding too far right when he shouldn't is fairly high (1 in 10 - probably higher than that, perhaps as high as half the time), and the odds of a crossing motorist up ahead not noticing him is also fair high (say 1 in 4), which leaves a probability of such a cyclist being overlooked being at least .025, or 25 out of 1,000.


Notice that this is consistent with the type of experience Beck reports. With Robert, who, despite what the Mercedes incident and his analysis of it might lead one to think, probably does not ride as far right quite as often as Beck, the 1 in 10 might be 1 in 25 (.04), so the odds for him being over looked is more like .01 (10 out of 1,000, or 1 in 100), which explains his "one every eight hours" test results (assuming he has about 12 encounters an hour with drivers in cross traffic that need to notice him in order not to pull out in front of him).

^^^
You ride a bicycle in traffic with a black jacket, HH? That's dumb. For something to be noticed, it must first be seen. What a simple error, and such a simple error to correct.

A little anecdote for you. I was riding behind my father one day; we were working at different places but our commute routes were on the same road and I was catching up to him. Bright sunlight, but he was wearing a dark green shirt against a backdrop of healthy, green vegetation. I actually had him passing in and out of my vision, due to his camouflage. It is not that people cannot see you, it is that it takes them longer for you to come into their vision, regardless of your road position. At some point, if you ride enough, those extra 10 seconds that you buy yourself with brightly colored clothing might come in handy.
It's counter-intuitive, I know. But I find centerish lane positioning to be so effective at establishing conspicuity early that any advantage that comes from bright clothing to be negligible. I found this out by accident. I got the jacket cheap from a racer who won it in a prime in a race and just wanted to get rid of it, so I tried it out. I believed in the effectivity of bright clothing, but I decided to try it. My experience is apparently consistent with the experience of motorcyclists, who tend to wear dark clothing, and with their relatively higher speeds, they need to be noticed from a much longer way back by potential cross traffic.

But I recognize it's a compromise of sorts, particularly in shadows and against dark backgrounds. I also have a white safety reflector vest that I often wear over it, but not always (e.g., I may leave the vest at work, then wear the dark jacket to work the next day).

What I'm saying is

that the odds of a given motorist not noticing a cyclist ahead of him in his path is extremely low, on the order of 1 in 10,000, or less;
that the odds of a cyclist using a mirror (on top of using hearing) to establish and maintain rearward situational awareness, not noticing a motorist approaching from behind is also very low, say 1 in 1000 (.001);
and that the product of those already extremely low probabilities is much lower even still (.00001 * .001 = .00000001),
while the probability of a cyclist (who does not default centerish) riding too far right when he shouldn't is fairly high (1 in 10 - probably higher than that, perhaps as high as half the time), and the odds of a crossing motorist up ahead not noticing him is also fair high (say 1 in 4), which leaves a probability of such a cyclist being overlooked being at least .025, or 25 out of 1,000.



So HH with this tremendous odds, are you saying that no cyclist using this methodology has ever been hit? Say from the side, while they were watching traffic from behind?

Since I have been hit twice... both from the front... and one time while clearly in the vision and sight of the motorist; I suppose I am due to win the lottery. :rolleyes:

So HH with this tremendous odds, are you saying that no cyclist using this methodology has ever been hit? Say from the side, while they were watching traffic from behind?

Since I have been hit twice... both from the front... and one time while clearly in the vision and sight of the motorist; I suppose I am due to win the lottery. :rolleyes:
Now you're talking about the odds of a centered cyclist being overlooked by cross traffic, which I was not talking about.

The odds of being overlooked by cross traffic when riding centered are higher than the odds of being overlooked from behind (I estimate they are about the same as the probability that a motorcyclist is not noticed), but still much lower than being overlooked by cross traffic when riding in the margin.

The fact that riding centered mitigates (doesn't eliminate) the risk of being overlooked should not be used to justify carelessness.

EDIT: I should add that you should also not confuse the risk of being overlooked with the risk of being hit. Being overlooked is only one of the factors that have to be present in order to be hit (assuming being overlooked is a factor). For a crash to occur, the cyclist has to not only be overlooked, but he has to fail to evade the crash too. And to answer your question (that I've enboldened above), of course I'm not saying that.

^^^
Ah, the ol' "I don't wear a helmet because it doesn't help much" defense, trotted out for a defense of not wearing high visibility clothing. Not that I don't disagree with you necessarily, but just to make you aware of your argument type.

BTW, many motorcyclists in town here have taken to wearing safety vests for the same reason cyclists wear them. Apparently it is also a concern amongst the most vehicular of bicyclists (motorcyclists) as well.

^^^
Ah, the ol' "I don't wear a helmet because it doesn't help much" defense, trotted out for a defense of not wearing high visibility clothing. Not that I don't disagree with you necessarily, but just to make you aware of your argument type.

BTW, many motorcyclists in town here have taken to wearing safety vests for the same reason cyclists wear them. Apparently it is also a concern amongst the most vehicular of bicyclists (motorcyclists) as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of wearing bright/visible clothing (much bigger than Robert - let's put it that way). I just happened to learn that in normal good lighting circumstances, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, at least when I'm using conspicuous lane positioning.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of wearing bright/visible clothing (much bigger than Robert - let's put it that way). I just happened to learn that in normal good lighting circumstances, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, at least when I'm using conspicuous lane positioning.


Surely, by your own arguments, any advantage, no matter how small is worth taking.

Surely, by your own arguments, any advantage, no matter how small is worth taking.
I won't argue with that.

I'm curious how all this lane positioning chatter would hold up under real world conditions like the ones discussed in the commuter forum pretty much daily.

For example in this thread about Bicycling in Florida. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=361617)