VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

RobertHurst

Robert, the answers to your questions (above in bold) are both no. The later questions seem to be based on assuming that these first questions are to be answered in the affirmative, so I'm ignoring them.

Again, I can't tell you exactly how I (or any other VC advocate or LCI) would position myself and manage faster same direction overtaking traffic on a road with which I'm not familiar. And, of course, there is no one set answer anyway...

Correct. No set answer, no set rules. There are several good ways to do it and twice as many bad ways.

...
As for conditions that applied at the time of the Mercedes incident, in your book, at least in the first edition, there is no mention of any other same direction traffic, though on this forum you've told us there was one driver of a car approaching from behind. ...

Correct. The reason I didn't mention the approaching vehicle is it wasn't relevant to what I was trying to say. Fact is I was in that position, six feet from doorhandles. It's not like that is an unusual position to be riding in urban areas, by any means. And this distance will be closer to 4 feet than 6 some of the time. This is a very common road position for efficient, cooperative riders. Less than optimal, sure. We'll move farther out given the chance, much farther out in my case (I like to ride right down the middle of a narrow street much of the time, maximizing my space to either side), but the lane-sharing position is no stranger to anyone who rides much at all. Given that you'll find yourself there often, as I was that day, you'd better learn how to do it right. 'Move left' is not an answer for how to ride in the area just left of the door zone. And lane-taking is a poor substitute for the skill and experience and vigilance that allows one to ride safely near the margin.

Concerning that particular collision and that particular driver error, I'll thank HH for giving me another chance to repeat this very important point: that a hypothetical change in my lane position to the center of the travel lane (a shift left of about 5 feet), without a change in my own state of mind at that time, would likely have ended with the same, crunching result. Prime lane position won't save the bacon of a cyclist who is not aware of what is going on and who is not even watching the road at the critical moment. Nor will it make a driver who doesn't look more likely to see you.

Robert

Allister

This message is hidden because Allister is on your ignore list (http://www.bikeforums.net/profile.php?do=editlist).

I guess some people can't handle a fair argument.

randya

OMG is HH discussing the MERCEDES INCIDENT again?!?!?!?

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:roflmao:

Allister

OMG is HH discussing the MERCEDES INCIDENT again?!?!?!?

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:roflmao:

Lord knows he doesn't have any of his own experiences to analyse.

Bekologist

today, on a ride around town, running errands and getting a little extra hill work in at the same time, I rode to the side to let a car pass me while we approached and rolled thru an intersection- and there was cross traffic at the intersection as well!

head, you probably would have done some wierd hand waving and butt waggling to block the motorist after attempting to get them to yield to you, despite a safe and visible road position that I was able to pilot.

actually, I take that back.

it was raining. I doubt head goes for rides in the rain. he would have been running errands in his car. oh, right, and head doesn't even run errands on his bike.

TheWheelman

Bekologist writes:
"today, on a ride around town, running errands and getting a little extra hill work in at the same time,

TF: Your own dedicated-transportational-cyclist criteria that you set forth in the other, ad hominem thread, prohibits getting benefits in addition to transportation out of a transportational ride. Therefore, add yourself to your non-dedicated-transportational-cyclist hall of shame.

Later in the same post - after alluding to having done some of his cyclist-inferiority, leper-cycling moves on that ride also - Bekologist adds:
"it was raining. I doubt head goes for rides in the rain. he would have been running errands in his car. oh, right, and head doesn't even run errands on his bike."

TF: It sounds a little bit like _you_ haven't ridden in the rain much. Are we the first ones that you ran to afterwards to tell about it, or was it mommy?

Bekologist

TheWheelman

:roflmao:

yeah, me and the lepers, riding in the rain. sharing the roads safely with cars by using situational awareness.

there is no cyclist inferiority inferred from my lane position, dude. I posess no 'cyclist inferiority' I suspect you too, sometimes share the road with cars.

do you know how to ride using situational awareness, or, like the riders Robert Hurst criticizes in his book, rely soley on your 'vehicular parity'?

have you read Hurst's book?

did YOU ride today?

I choose to ride regardless of the weather and have for decades. neither rain, nor snow, nor sleet, nor dark of night, keeps me out of the saddle.

I speculate head doesn't ride in the rain by choice. he's more of a 'voluntary recreationalist'. i know he doesn't run errands on his bike.

my dedicated transportational criteria has nothing against enjoying oneself while bicycling, i have no idea where you got that idea.

what a whack.

No I haven't ridden yet today; it's 4 am!

Oops - 5:30 am; my bad; almost time to take my ride down off of this hill, to the Lenox Diner for breakfast. Time really flies when one is having fun doing things like peeking at an opponent's post in another thread, namely the left-coast-banana-belt (have you ever cycled in Ketchikan in December as I have?) one in which you dogmatically recommend to a newbie, "fenders".

I haven't used fenders on my bikes in over 30 years! I'm not against fenders either; only your dogmatism. In _my_ rain riding (which BTW constitutes a _higher_ percentage of my riding than it would if I were as "dedicated" as you, because I tend to deliberately _pick_, and have done so for decades, the "worst"-weather days to do my more significant cycling so as to maximize my use of the good-weather days to do my farm work), I've found that the pail that I keep on my rear pannier (news flash: I carry stuff all the time too!) keeps my rear dry almost as dry if not as dry, as a rear fender would, and that the benefits of not having a front fender (pants-washing, ease of flicking a suspected tack off the tire with one's fingers, and _general_ simplicity) arguably cancels out any benefit that _that_ fender would provide _either_.

I don't recall even hearing of "Hurst", let alone reading his book. For the time being, I'm only cyberstalking suspected leper (i.e. cyclist-inferiority) cyclists such as yourself. Beginning a lane-sharing stance while preparing to enter an intersection, is leper cycling.

But if you say Head doesn't run errands on his bike, I'll take your word for it until he pipes up about it. Not that you have any credibility (just see the flip-flop in your criteria for "dedicated" for the latest example of _that_); it's just that your statement about Head does check with his tendency to second, almost like a robot, the various motions that are made on Chainguard that the cycling community tolerate being booted off of certain freeways.

Brian Ratliff

A wonderful rainstorm yesterday in Tualitin. I managed to ride my bike up under the storm cloud, and stopped for hail twice. I was all congratulating myself too for my savy when I started south of the stormcloud, about how I would just follow it and never get wet. Then I go and ride up underneath it. I swear the rain gods heard me thinking about my savy and decided to stop the cloud, forcing me to ride through it... :D

RobertHurst

...

...

What's so bad about slowing down to let them pass (by half was just a rough estimate of a speed to let traffic pass quickly)? It's better than stopping and keeps everybody happy. I don't recall if you mentioned if there was a double yellow centerline or not. Either way, if motorists all of sudden decided to obey the letter of the law and never cross a double yellow line to pass me, my cycling would be far less enjoyable. When there's good sightlines and you are going slow enough, I don't see why it matters. Cops around me don't seem to care either.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier. When I said 'illegally motioning the motorist over the double yellow,' I was referring to the cyclist, who would be legally obligated to move right, even with the various exceptions granted in the law (not that this should keep you from doing it as necessary here and there anyway). The reality on that street like many others is that even if the rider moves to the bike lane, many if not most passing motorists will slow a bit and drive over the double yellow a bit if they can to ease the pass, which I guess makes a lot of the passes there technically illegal. And that's how it should work -- you move over a bit to the right, they move over a bit to the left, cooperation and compromise, everybody goes on their way safely having shared the burden of the interaction as citizens. Contrast that to HH's desire to slow every passing motorist to his speed -- extreme prima donna cycling. There is no sense of compromise there. It's like a spoiled child demanding a cheese sandwich.

Why not wait until you just passed the blind intersection until doing so, leaving yourself enough time to get back into your primary position before the next intersection?

Had I been riding with the proper awareness there are lots of things I could have done, even in that lane position, to avoid or at least minimize a collision which turned out to be quite violent. Starting with: watching the damn road; thinking about what the heck I was doing and where the heck I was, instead of daydreaming at the crucial moment; slowing down. Ideally, the sequence would have started with me in my 'default position,' a position further left than I've ever heard advocated by any self-proclaimed VCer. Then I may have had a chance to see the play developing early and bust some kind of crazy alien messenger move to get around the encroaching vehicle. Judging by the speed of the car as it came out of the alley and crossed the entire lane, however, it's clear that optimal lane position, while desirable, would not have been enough (and typical VC position between the tire tracks? forget about it). I would also have to be watching the intersection like the hawk and poised in an athletic sense to take action. I should have been. I wasn't.

There are lots of things I could have done to avoid this wreck and I didn't do any of them. My bad. Like every other cyclist out there, I have ridden poorly on occasion and I have almost always been bailed out by luck. This time I wasn't.

Robert

joejack951

Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier. When I said 'illegally motioning the motorist over the double yellow,' I was referring to the cyclist, who would be legally obligated to move right, even with the various exceptions granted in the law (not that this should keep you from doing it as necessary here and there anyway).

As far as I can tell, the only law that trumps the far right law (with it's various exceptions) is the impeding traffic law or minimum speed law (depending on the state). Neither of those laws actually require a cyclist to move right at a time that would not be practicable, such as when approaching an intersection.

The reality on that street like many others is that even if the rider moves to the bike lane, many if not most passing motorists will slow a bit and drive over the double yellow a bit if they can to ease the pass, which I guess makes a lot of the passes there technically illegal. And that's how it should work -- you move over a bit to the right, they move over a bit to the left, cooperation and compromise, everybody goes on their way safely having shared the burden of the interaction as citizens. Contrast that to HH's desire to slow every passing motorist to his speed -- extreme prima donna cycling. There is no sense of compromise there. It's like a spoiled child demanding a cheese sandwich.

I hope you don't really believe the Bek strawmen argument that "[HH] desire[s] to slow every passing motorist to his speed." Having used the technique as described by HH, and somewhat similarly described by you (at least for inner city riding), it's very much a cooperative and compromising way of riding, as opposed to either being completely uncooperative (never moving over) or completely compromising (always trying to stay out of the way). Only in certain situations do I (and I assume HH too) ever require motorists to slow completely to my speed when there is room to move right. Those situations are usually when there is just enough room for them to get by and I am trying to be as cooperative as possible.

Had I been riding with the proper awareness there are lots of things I could have done, even in that lane position, to avoid or at least minimize a collision which turned out to be quite violent. Starting with: watching the damn road; thinking about what the heck I was doing and where the heck I was, instead of daydreaming at the crucial moment; slowing down. Ideally, the sequence would have started with me in my 'default position,' a position further left than I've ever heard advocated by any self-proclaimed VCer.

Just so you know, I'm not getting into this to say "this is how you could have avoided this accident." I'm more interested in hearing how you would have changed what you did previously (aside from just saying you would have paid more attention).

It sounds like ideally you would have slowed down (where in the lane?) and/or (and this would answer my previous question) stayed further left (even with the van behind you?). If so, isn't that what I've suggested earlier but you countered by saying that cyclists are morally and legally operated to move right in this situation and that slowing down is ridiculous (paraphrased, sorry for any bad word choices).

Then I may have had a chance to see the play developing early and bust some kind of crazy alien messenger move to get around the encroaching vehicle. Judging by the speed of the car as it came out of the alley and crossed the entire lane, however, it's clear that optimal lane position, while desirable, would not have been enough (and typical VC position between the tire tracks? forget about it). I would also have to be watching the intersection like the hawk and poised in an athletic sense to take action. I should have been. I wasn't.

There are lots of things I could have done to avoid this wreck and I didn't do any of them. My bad. Like every other cyclist out there, I have ridden poorly on occasion and I have almost always been bailed out by luck. This time I wasn't.

Robert

I won't try to argue that any amount of anything could have saved you from experiencing your wreck but as you've admitted, paying more attention wasn't the whole of what you did wrong. Assuming some answers to the questions above, you reacted wrongly to the approaching vehicle for whatever reason (you saw the law and morals) which put you in a much worse situation than if you held your ground in the lane (say for instance that the motorist only backed halfway into the lane, a much more common occurence than going fully into it).

Bekologist

flipped4bikes

Contrast that to HH's desire to slow every passing motorist to his speed -- extreme prima donna cycling. There is no sense of compromise there. It's like a spoiled child demanding a cheese sandwich.

Robert

Or a cyclist demanding chocolate...

joejack951

i cannot believe the pompous, pontificating posturing that is going on in this thread by helemt head and his followers about lane sharing in urban areas.

riding in cities, with intersections, traffic, and bicyclists, there's a LOT of give and take involved. there is a LOT of lane sharing at intersections.

Unrealistic claims of never using a lane sharing position while approaching or passing minor intersections, driveways or alleys showcases helmet heads' and joejacks' lack of experience.

And you continue to showcase your lack of reading skills by posting replies such as the above. I'll agree that A LOT of cyclists share lanes at intersections everywhere. That doesn't mean that I do it as much or in the same manner that they do.

RobertHurst

As far as I can tell, the only law that trumps the far right law (with it's various exceptions) is the impeding traffic law or minimum speed law (depending on the state). Neither of those laws actually require a cyclist to move right at a time that would not be practicable, such as when approaching an intersection.

JJ, the popular notion among BFers and even expressed by me to some degree in my book, that alleys and driveways make 'intersections,' would cause just about any law enforcement personnel including traffic judges to issue a hearty laugh in your general direction. But be clear that legal obligation had nothing to do with my moving right in that situation, and almost never does. Thinking in terms of 'I am legally allowed to do this or that' is the wrong way to think while riding in traffic.

I hope you don't really believe the Bek strawmen argument that "[HH] desire[s] to slow every passing motorist to his speed." ...

HH expressed his preference to have every passing motorist slow to his speed on streets like the one in question (although of course he's never seen the street in question) just a few posts above this one. Extreme prima donna cycling. Lane-taking is no substitute for skill and experience, but that I sense is how HH and others, perhaps yourself, abuse their lane-blocking powers.

Just so you know, I'm not getting into this to say "this is how you could have avoided this accident." I'm more interested in hearing how you would have changed what you did previously (aside from just saying you would have paid more attention).

If that's true then you can simply read my answers to that in a gazillion posts, or just this one.

It sounds like ideally you would have slowed down (where in the lane?) and/or (and this would answer my previous question) stayed further left (even with the van behind you?). If so, isn't that what I've suggested earlier but you countered by saying that cyclists are morally and legally operated to move right in this situation and that slowing down is ridiculous (paraphrased, sorry for any bad word choices).

No. The kind of slowing down that you suggested (that which would allow me to move over, allow the car to pass, and allow me to move back to the middle of the street without passing an intersection of any kind) would be a very extreme sort of slowing. Perhaps stopping. And that's for just one car; there are many cars. That type of riding would be totally impractical for anyone trying to get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time. May as well stay home or take the bus. The kind of slowing I was suggesting is a much more subtle adjustment of speed which could allow a skilled rider to account for the ugly potentialities of a compromised lane position, but keep movin on.

I won't try to argue that any amount of anything could have saved you from experiencing your wreck but

but but you won't tolerate any answer other than that which you have already decided upon, the stock VCist answer, that an adjustment in lane position would have solved everything. Well, it doesn't work like that. Proper situational awareness can make up for a compromised lane position; lane position will not make up for bad situational awareness. I don't know how I can state that any more plainly. This is something you will eventually learn very unambiguously if you keep riding.

as you've admitted, paying more attention wasn't the whole of what you did wrong. Assuming some answers to the questions above, you reacted wrongly to the approaching vehicle for whatever reason (you saw the law and morals) which put you in a much worse situation than if you held your ground in the lane (say for instance that the motorist only backed halfway into the lane, a much more common occurence than going fully into it).

Why don't you take a step back and listen to the guy who was there. Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely down that street literally thousands upon thousands of times, in every lane position imaginable. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision. If you need to package these things into neat little boxes, that's it.

Robert

John Forester

This silliness only makes sense if the "typical cyclist" is a child that has not driven a vehicle.

The major trouble with American traffic cycling is that the majority of cyclists do not apply the rules of the road to their cycling actions. This is true even though the cyclists being considered are adults with driving licenses. Not only is this shown by many discussions, but it is also shown by the students in my classes. If it is a class of adults, I often start by asking for a show of hands by those with motoring licenses. Everybody, almost, raises a hand. So I say "I don't know why you are here. You already know how to drive a vehicle." But at the end of the class, most say that they learned more than they knew existed.

Bekologist

jhon, are you really still teaching bicycling?

genec

The major trouble with American traffic cycling is that the majority of cyclists do not apply the rules of the road to their cycling actions. This is true even though the cyclists being considered are adults with driving licenses. Not only is this shown by many discussions, but it is also shown by the students in my classes. If it is a class of adults, I often start by asking for a show of hands by those with motoring licenses. Everybody, almost, raises a hand. So I say "I don't know why you are here. You already know how to drive a vehicle." But at the end of the class, most say that they learned more than they knew existed.

Which fully emphasizes that it is motorists that need "bicycle education" not cyclists themselves.

Motorists generally don't know that cyclists have rights to the road, and thus even these potential cyclists were not aware of the laws. Even some police officers (as exemplified by reports here on BF) don't know laws with regard to bicycles.

Allister

The major trouble with American traffic cycling is that the majority of cyclists do not apply the rules of the road to their cycling actions.

You'd think after all these decades of strident advocacy for cyclist education, from such a clearly influential individual such as yourself, you'd have been able to make a bit more progress there.

Maybe the grouch routine isn't as effective as you had hoped. It could be time for a change of tactics.

joejack951

JJ, the popular notion among BFers and even expressed by me to some degree in my book, that alleys and driveways make 'intersections,' would cause just about any law enforcement personnel including traffic judges to issue a hearty laugh in your general direction. But be clear that legal obligation had nothing to do with my moving right in that situation, and almost never does. Thinking in terms of 'I am legally allowed to do this or that' is the wrong way to think while riding in traffic.

I agree that simply thinking in legal terms is the wrong approach, but for some people I believe that it would encourage them to position themselves better if they realized that the law does allow it if not in the minds of law enforcement but in the true intentions of the law (not something I know for certain yet but I will soon hear a judge's opinion on "as far right as practicable" after finding out that one cop interprets it differently than I do: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335730).

HH expressed his preference to have every passing motorist slow to his speed on streets like the one in question (although of course he's never seen the street in question) just a few posts above this one. Extreme prima donna cycling.

Well, not really. What he said was that if traffic was spaced out such that he was only encountering a faster moving vehicle every 15 seconds or so that he would stay left and only move over after traffic had reached him. Given the tight space to manuever in based on your description of the road, he'd prefer that traffic slowed to his speed first to avoid a high speed close pass (at least that's why I would do it and I why I assume HH would too). If traffic was heavier, there's no way to make every vehicle slow to your speed unless you hold them all up, something that would only be done when really necessary. Though, I would add that any time I've been in a city setting with heavy traffic on a single lane each direction road, it hasn't been moving very quickly due to stop signs and red lights. Usually if traffic is flowing, you get small packs of vehicles (3-5) that my necessitate some slowing in between intersections to allow them to pass.

Lane-taking is no substitute for skill and experience, but that I sense is how HH and others, perhaps yourself, abuse their lane-blocking powers.

So what do you suggest instead of lane-taking at intersections? Super ninja messenger skills? I won't claim to have any super bike handling skills. In fact, I know I don't. I do know how to anticipate problems up ahead and prepare for them though. One of the things I can do to prepare for a problem is put myself in a position so that the majority of the problems that could occur can't happen or can't happen as easily. Even if my skills do improve so that I can bunnyhop right hooking motorists, I still wouldn't put myself in a position that relied on those skills to save me. It's just not worth it.

If that's true then you can simply read my answers to that in a gazillion posts, or just this one.

I've been reading your posts and you seem to be contradicting yourself or not making sense. You keep going back to paying attention which you have at least implied would include slowing down or staying further left. But my comments about slowing down or staying further left have been discarded by you as unreasonable (see below) or borderline illegal.

No. The kind of slowing down that you suggested (that which would allow me to move over, allow the car to pass, and allow me to move back to the middle of the street without passing an intersection of any kind) would be a very extreme sort of slowing. Perhaps stopping. And that's for just one car; there are many cars. That type of riding would be totally impractical for anyone trying to get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time. May as well stay home or take the bus. The kind of slowing I was suggesting is a much more subtle adjustment of speed which could allow a skilled rider to account for the ugly potentialities of a compromised lane position, but keep movin on.

In order for what you're saying to be true, every road you travelled on would need to be chock full of blind alleys. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I've never seen anything close. Usually, there are some bad spots the necessitate taking the lane for a bit until there's a longer gap between intersections or better sightlines at least (which of course allows for the possibility of being seen by some uneducated cop and getting pulled over).

but but you won't tolerate any answer other than that which you have already decided upon, the stock VCist answer, that an adjustment in lane position would have solved everything. Well, it doesn't work like that. Proper situational awareness can make up for a compromised lane position; lane position will not make up for bad situational awareness. I don't know how I can state that any more plainly. This is something you will eventually learn very unambiguously if you keep riding.

Proper situational awareness and super bike handling skills, or just the former? If your lane position is a dynamic thing, changing due to roadway width, intersections, and traffic, you already have situational awareness. That awareness tells you that just because traffic is approaching from behind that it's not a good time to move right. I wouldn't throw my awareness of the current situation away and put myself where a worse situation could occur just because I was confident that I could handle my way out of that worse situation if necessary. I'd rather not put myself there at all.

Why don't you take a step back and listen to the guy who was there. Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely down that street literally thousands upon thousands of times, in every lane position imaginable. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision. If you need to package these things into neat little boxes, that's it.

Robert

Ok. Thanks for talking about it one more time.

genec

J
Why don't you take a step back and listen to the guy who was there. Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely down that street literally thousands upon thousands of times, in every lane position imaginable. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision. If you need to package these things into neat little boxes, that's it.

Robert

In other words you were human, with human frailties and faults and you happened to engage another human who made the wrong choice at that particular moment... and you were vulnerable.

The real issue is that so many of the "other humans" tend to not think beyond their hood ornaments... don't think about the consequences of their actions on others, and sadly tend to use power as a way to get out of a tight spot... where caution is better exercised.

Helmet Head

Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely down that street literally thousands upon thousands of times, in every lane position imaginable. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision. If you need to package these things into neat little boxes, that's it.

Just because you ride down a street without incident, even if you do it thousands of times, doesn't mean you do it safely.
That's like saying,

I've ridden safely in that door zone literally thousands upon thousands of times. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move (suddenly opened the door while hidden from view by his short stature and the head rest), and I wasn't ready for it in any way.
The whole point of developing best practices, like riding outside of door zones, and avoiding riding too far right (6' from parked cars) when approaching a junction with a blind alley, is that your habits keep you safe when you neglect to pay attention momentarily. it's so that your safety does not rely on 100% vigilance on your part, which of course is not possible.

This should be especially true on roads on which you have ridden thousands of times. Your habit about where to ride should have been so well established that you would have been further left, out by the left tire track, automatically, without thinking about it at all.

Again, you have written a very good book with lots of good stuff in it. But in it, and in your posts here, you continue to discount the value of good habits and best practices, especially those based on the vehicular-cycling described and taught by Forester, the LAB and every LCI I know.

You seem to have decided, for some reason that has never been made clear either in your book or in your posts here, that anyone who develops these types of good habits and best practices will somehow become some kind of inattentive moron while cycling in traffic. Even if you don't accept my contention that the very activity of learning the rules and working on obeying them makes the cyclist more attentive, you have not explained how it would someone less attentive, or less vigilant.

You have also never talked about how someone manages to become more attentive (if not by learning the rules and learning to obey them).

Helmet Head

Again, I can't tell you exactly how I (or any other VC advocate or LCI) would position myself and manage faster same direction overtaking traffic on a road with which I'm not familiar. And, of course, there is no one set answer anyway...
Correct. No set answer, no set rules. There are several good ways to do it and twice as many bad ways.

No. "No one set answer" does not mean "no set rules". There are rules that one can follow until they become ingrained habits. In fact, one way or another you will establish habits, the only question is what the rules will be, and how they will be established. Will they be random habits based on unintegrated and contradictory rules formed unconsciously, one random experience at a time? Or will they be habits formed systematically based on rules derived from study and analysis, specifically designed to minimize risk, and taking into account every human's (cyclist and motorist) propensity to fail at paying attention from time to time?

Correct. The reason I didn't mention the approaching vehicle is it wasn't relevant to what I was trying to say. Fact is I was in that position, six feet from doorhandles. It's not like that is an unusual position to be riding in urban areas, by any means. And this distance will be closer to 4 feet than 6 some of the time. This is a very common road position for efficient, cooperative riders. Less than optimal, sure. We'll move farther out given the chance, much farther out in my case (I like to ride right down the middle of a narrow street much of the time, maximizing my space to either side), but the lane-sharing position is no stranger to anyone who rides much at all. Given that you'll find yourself there often, as I was that day, you'd better learn how to do it right. 'Move left' is not an answer for how to ride in the area just left of the door zone. And lane-taking is a poor substitute for the skill and experience and vigilance that allows one to ride safely near the margin.

Concerning that particular collision and that particular driver error, I'll thank HH for giving me another chance to repeat this very important point: that a hypothetical change in my lane position to the center of the travel lane (a shift left of about 5 feet), without a change in my own state of mind at that time, would likely have ended with the same, crunching result. Prime lane position won't save the bacon of a cyclist who is not aware of what is going on and who is not even watching the road at the critical moment. Nor will it make a driver who doesn't look more likely to see you.

No one is suggesting that best practices should be used in place of paying attention.

Helmet Head

You (and they) will be waiting all day before you find such a situation that satisfies your high maintenance requirements as an extreme prima donna VCer. If you ever get around to riding regularly in busy traffic you might figure that out. Your requirements are unrealistic: following them would dictate a very uncooperative, let's just say dickish, form of riding, or pulling over all the time to avoid sharing lanes through intersections. In short your rules will leave you hanging at the first sign of reality. If your rules can't account for a situation as common as that, what good are they?

And that's how it should work -- you move over a bit to the right, they move over a bit to the left, cooperation and compromise, everybody goes on their way safely having shared the burden of the interaction as citizens. Contrast that to HH's desire to slow every passing motorist to his speed -- extreme prima donna cycling. There is no sense of compromise there. It's like a spoiled child demanding a cheese sandwich.

It's very disconcerting to have a noted cycling author refer disparagingly to cyclists who simply assert their legal rights safely on the road as being "prima donnas".

RobertHurst

It's very disconcerting to have a noted cycling author refer disparagingly to cyclists who simply assert their legal rights safely on the road as being "prima donnas".

You have rights and you have responsibilities. I'm not sure you understand your responsibilities.

You're not the only person out there. If you act like you are, as it seems you would judging by your words on this topic, that's prima donna cycling. That's selfish, and unreasonable, and uncompromising. And, incidentally, it happens to be illegal, despite y'all's tortured interpretations of the law.

There is a dance to traffic cycling. It's give and take. Not just take. Try it. Lane-taking is a valuable strategy. However, it is not a good substitute for experience in traffic. Many inexperienced riders use it as a crutch. The real danger of course not that they will piss off motorists, but that they will believe that an advantageous lane position makes them safe.

It's frustrating to repeatedly hand-hold inexperienced cyclists through these endless circular discussions concerning situations of which they have minimal knowledge and apparently can't even conceive, when real hands-on experience on the type of road in question would quickly make you realize what I'm talking about.

Robert

RobertHurst

No one is suggesting that best practices should be used in place of paying attention.

I'm not sure what you guys are suggesting, to be honest.

What I'm saying is this: A cyclist using so-called 'best practices' -- however those happen to be defined this minute -- will still be _dependent_ on situational awareness. There is no magic bullet of 'best practice' which will relieve a cyclist of the need to be vigilant in traffic. Following the rules, whatever they are, won't change that. Belief in 'best practice' as one's ultimate savior can only be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of traffic, a misunderstanding that can only survive in the absence of experience and familiarity with available facts. This will remain true even as your definition of 'best practice' evolves as it crashes up against real world situations.

If you disagree with that, fine. There's nothing I can do or say to convince you. You'll just have to find out for yourself.

Robert

RobertHurst

Just because you ride down a street without incident, even if you do it thousands of times, doesn't mean you do it safely.
That's like saying,
...
.

No, it's not like saying that at all. I don't squeeze into door zones. When, on rare occasion, I make a decision to enter a door zone, I do so at low speed and on high alert. Unless I'm completely zoned out, of course, which is always a possibility.

Your whole theory of 'best-practice' here is based on a notion that you could avoid riding in a moderate road-sharing position while passing any sort of alley or driveway intersection, forever and always. This is a laughable notion to anyone who rides in the city. Your 'best practice' becomes useless when real situations necessitate improvisation.

City riding requires a cyclist to negotiate lane positions and situations that are more compromising than what we would consider ideal. To think otherwise is complete folly. Given the reality of traffic cycling, it is best to understand when a compromise occurs or is about to occur and how to deal with it. It is worse than useless to say 'don't compromise' when compromise is inevitable.

Robert

RobertHurst

...
Well, not really. What he said was that if traffic was spaced out such that he was only encountering a faster moving vehicle every 15 seconds or so that he would stay left and only move over after traffic had reached him. Given the tight space to manuever in based on your description of the road, he'd prefer that traffic slowed to his speed first to avoid a high speed close pass (at least that's why I would do it and I why I assume HH would too). ....

Unnecessary, and selfish. Not smooth. Not good citizenship. This qualifies imo as 'prima donna' cycling.

I'm not sure if these are traffic cycling issues, ultimately, or personality issues. There is that old saying, if you can't share then you don't get to play. I would say for those who haven't learned to share and play nice with others, they should stay out of traffic. It would be better for all of us if the 'prima donnas' stayed home to ride their keyboards.

Proper situational awareness and super bike handling skills, or just the former? If your lane position is a dynamic thing, changing due to roadway width, intersections, and traffic, you already have situational awareness. That awareness tells you that just because traffic is approaching from behind that it's not a good time to move right. I wouldn't throw my awareness of the current situation away and put myself where a worse situation could occur just because I was confident that I could handle my way out of that worse situation if necessary. I'd rather not put myself there at all.
.

Well, you're going to be there at some point, whether you like it or not. Do you have some strategy to deal with less than ideal situations? 'Don't get in less than ideal situations' is not a good answer to that.

Robert

makeinu

Helmet Head

You have rights and you have responsibilities. I'm not sure you understand your responsibilities.
How condescending of you.

You're not the only person out there. If you act like you are, as it seems you would judging by your words on this topic, that's prima donna cycling. That's selfish, and unreasonable, and uncompromising. And, incidentally, it happens to be illegal, despite y'all's tortured interpretations of the law.
I agree that acting as if you're the only person out there is fairly characterized as prima donna cycling and is arguably illegal. Of course, that's not what I or anyone else is suggesting. I'm suggesting you were too far right (which you've admitted) because you did not have the ingrained habits, honed by learning and practicing best practices, to automatically look back and move left instinctively when approaching a junction with a blind alley to which your sight lines are obscured by parked cars. If you had developed appropriate habits through learning and practicing vc best practices, you wouldn't have to be paying attention every moment (which is humanly impossible) to remember to do everything right for every possible situation.

There is a dance to traffic cycling. It's give and take. Not just take.

Of course. Many people see this as the essence of vehicular-cycling. For example, LCI Lauren Cooper has a bicycle safety flier that is based on this notion, entitled, "Dancing-With-Cars: An Introduction to Better, Safer, Lawful-Bicyclists."

Try it.

It's the way I ride. But thanks for the suggestion, however couched in condescension it is.

Lane-taking is a valuable strategy. However, it is not a good substitute for experience in traffic.

Your straw man arguments sure waste a lot of bandwidth. No one I know suggests lane-taking is "a good substitute for experience in traffic". But lots of cyclists have lots of "experience" riding in traffic, but they don't have much experience dancing with it, including feeling (without thinking) the advantages of lane-taking, often when fsdt is not present.

Many inexperienced riders use it as a crutch.

Really? I've never seen an inexperienced cyclist take the lane where he or she obviously should, much less where there is a good reason not to do so. It would be a kick to see that, however. I rarely see cyclists take the lane at all.

The real danger of course not that they will piss off motorists, but that they will believe that an advantageous lane position makes them safe.

I don't know anyone that feels lane position alone makes them safe (safer, yes, but even you have admitted that advantageous lane position is part of making a cyclist safer). Do you? If so, who? If not, what is your basis for saying this? If no basis, please stop saying it, okay?

It's frustrating to repeatedly hand-hold inexperienced cyclists through these endless circular discussions concerning situations of which they have minimal knowledge and apparently can't even conceive, when real hands-on experience on the type of road in question would quickly make you realize what I'm talking about.

As JoeJack has already pointed out, you're not making any sense. You've already admitted that you should have been further left, but needed to be paying more attention to realize this. So, obviously, your default unthinking behavior was to be riding too far right. The remedy for this is learning and adopting vc best practices so that your habits are better honed. You can repeat the need to pay attention better, and that's great, but the fact is that you're human, and so, apt to be distracted, especially on a route that you've covered safely without incident "iiterally thousands of times". As a successful messenger, you probably have a natural ability to pay attention better than most, including most of your readers, but you're still not infallible. When you figure how how people can learn to never get distracted, I suggest you write a book on that topic. You might get an honorary degree in cog sci to boot. In the mean time, I strongly suggest you learn and adopt some of these vc best practices, so that your riding doesn't rely so much on ideal vigilance, which is of course impossible to achieve.

Bekologist

:roflmao:

more saddle, less prattle, head.

Helmet Head

I'm not sure what you guys are suggesting, to be honest.
I'm suggesting you recognize the value in learning and adopting best practices like being extra wary whenever riding so far right as to be in a bike lane adjacent to parked cars, especially when approaching a junction with a blind alley, and learning to automatically/instinctively look back and move left in such situations. I'm suggesting that you learn and adopt vc practices, instead of simply bemoaning that you should have been paying more attention when a Mercedes pulls out of that blind alley right in front of you, too late for you to be able to avoid it.

What I'm saying is this: A cyclist using so-called 'best practices' -- however those happen to be defined this minute -- will still be _dependent_ on situational awareness. There is no magic bullet of 'best practice' which will relieve a cyclist of the need to be vigilant in traffic. Following the rules, whatever they are, won't change that.

Of course. I hope you don't think anyone is disagreeing with any of that. However, a cyclist who habitually rides in a manner that automatically maximizes sight lines and buffer zones, even when he's not paying attention, is that much less likely to be in a situation where particularly high situational awareness is required to avoid a crash, as compared to the cyclist who relies on high situational awareness to simply be positioned in a manner that maximizes sight lines and buffer zones.

Belief in 'best practice' as one's ultimate savior can only be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of traffic, a misunderstanding that can only survive in the absence of experience and familiarity with available facts. This will remain true even as your definition of 'best practice' evolves as it crashes up against real world situations.

Another straw man? No one is suggesting or even implying that "best practices" are the "ultimate savior".

If you disagree with that, fine. There's nothing I can do or say to convince you. You'll just have to find out for yourself.
Best practices are just that, best practices. But they're no ultimate savior. Pilots, engineers, soldiers, fire fighters, police officers, astronauts, doctors, nurses, defensive drivers, etc. etc., all learn and adopt best practices. So far as I know, somehow they're capable of doing this without believing in these practices to be their "ultimate savior". Why are you so resistant to the idea that traffic cyclists in general, and you in particular, could benefit from learning and adopting best practices as well?

Helmet Head

Well, not really. What he said was that if traffic was spaced out such that he was only encountering a faster moving vehicle every 15 seconds or so that he would stay left and only move over after traffic had reached him. Given the tight space to manuever in based on your description of the road, he'd prefer that traffic slowed to his speed first to avoid a high speed close pass (at least that's why I would do it and I why I assume HH would too). If traffic was heavier, there's no way to make every vehicle slow to your speed unless you hold them all up, something that would only be done when really necessary. Though, I would add that any time I've been in a city setting with heavy traffic on a single lane each direction road, it hasn't been moving very quickly due to stop signs and red lights. Usually if traffic is flowing, you get small packs of vehicles (3-5) that my necessitate some slowing in between intersections to allow them to pass.

Unnecessary, and selfish. Not smooth. Not good citizenship. This qualifies imo as 'prima donna' cycling.

First, JoeJack's interpretation is pretty much what I meant, again, with the obvious caveat that there is no way anyone can say for sure exactly how they would ride on a given road, without actually being there.

Ultimately, if it's clearly safe and reasonable to move aside, we all will. If it's clearly too narrow to safely share, we'll all take the lane. I think we all agree on that much.

The gray area is when the lane is of marginal width. It may be wide enough to share under some conditions, but not under others. Often, the speed and the width of the overtaking vehicle are conditions to be considered. In those situations I am apt to lane-take until the single driver approaches, then I move aside after they have slowed at least a bit. Whether that's a technique I would definitely use on this particular road, I don't know. I should add that when I am in situations where I do find it appropriate, and I use it, I am much more often greeted with waves, nods and smiles (when I move aside to let them pass after they slowed down) than honks or other expressions of frustrations or anger. It's a dance.

Robert, what is the name of this street and nearest intersection? I believe you've told us before, but I forgot.

Bekologist

are you also continuing to pretend you never ride in lane sharing positions past anywhere a car might pull over or turn out or into the road?

prima donna riding in a fantasy

Helmet Head

head, if you're trying to perpetuate the fantasy that

when you slow motorists down before moving over, while you could be safely sharing the lane, results in a preponderance of smiles, waves, and nods of approval,

you're in the running for liar of the year, buddy.
If I could be safely sharing the lane, then I would be safely sharing the lane. What I'm talking about is moderately wide lanes, where sharing is safe at low speeds differentials, but not as safe at higher speed differentials. In those cases I use lane positioning and other techniques to communicate to drivers approaching from behind that they need to take notice of me and slow down. Once they do, I move over, they pass, and, yes, often with a friendly smile, wave or nod. You should try it some time, but again, only on lanes that are "marginally wide" - barely wide enough to safely share, and then only at slow speed differentials.

are you also continuing to pretend you never ride in lane sharing positions past anywhere a car might pull over or turn out or into the road?

Of course not. But I habitually look back before approaching any such place, at least with a mirror glance, and will move left if it is safe and clear to do so. If overtaking traffic is present or approaching, and there speed indicates they are not going to turn right, I'll usually maintain position. Otherwise I will negotiate to move left.

Bekologist

If I could be safely sharing the lane, then I would be safely sharing the lane. What I'm talking about is moderately wide lanes, where sharing is safe at low speeds differentials, but not as safe at higher speed differentials. In those cases I use lane positioning and other techniques to communicate to drivers approaching from behind that they need to take notice of me and slow down. Once they do, I move over, they pass, and, yes, often with a friendly smile, wave or nod. You should try it some time, but again, only on lanes that are "marginally wide" - barely wide enough to safely share, and then only at slow speed differentials.

Of course not. But I habitually look back before approaching any such place, at least with a mirror glance, and will move left if it is safe and clear to do so. If overtaking traffic is present or approaching, and there speed indicates they are not going to turn right, I'll usually maintain position. Otherwise I will negotiate to move left.

what fantastic textbook cycling, such excellent armchair road positioning! impressive.

Helmet Head

Come to San Diego (when the air clears!), Beck, and I'll show you how the textbook cycling that I convey in words from my armchair is exercised in traffic.

RobertHurst

...
I agree that acting as if you're the only person out there is fairly characterized as prima donna cycling and is arguably illegal. Of course, that's not what I or anyone else is suggesting. I'm suggesting you were too far right (which you've admitted) because you did not have the ingrained habits, honed by learning and practicing best practices, to automatically look back and move left instinctively when approaching a junction with a blind alley to which your sight lines are obscured by parked cars.

What is this 'Look back and move left?' My default position in the absence of same direction traffic is way out in the middle of the street. There is no need to move left from that position, because I'm already there.

If you had developed appropriate habits through learning and practicing vc best practices, you wouldn't have to be paying attention every moment (which is humanly impossible) to remember to do everything right for every possible situation.

Sure....whatever you say, HH. The cyclist who uses 'best practices' is still _dependent_ on situational awareness.

Really? I've never seen an inexperienced cyclist take the lane where he or she obviously should, much less where there is a good reason not to do so. It would be a kick to see that, however. I rarely see cyclists take the lane at all.

I see quite a bit of unnecessary lane-taking from obviously inexperienced cyclists. It is emphatically not a kick to see that.

...even you have admitted that advantageous lane position is part of making a cyclist safer).

What is this 'admitted' crap? 'Hurst admits he should have been further left!' Brilliant, geniuses. Riding left is of course a major theme in my book. Maintaining a stout buffer zone is one of just four principles of traffic cycling that I, not a big fan of principles, am willing to lay out, and my 'default position' is actually much further left than that suggested by VC fatwas. For instance, I suggest riding at least 10 feet from parked cars when traveling 20 mph. (p. 78) For a street with narrow lanes, that's right down the middle of the street. Personally I could be riding down the middle of a narrow street and still wish I had more space. I've never heard such a thing advocated by VCers, who tend to be such wide-eyed beginners that they see riding anywhere left of the right tire track as some extremely empowering hear-me-roar position. I urge cyclists to see the entire street surface as potentially open and available for their use, and to give more respect to the potential for hazards to nonetheless cross that space in a flash.

As a successful messenger, you probably have a natural ability to pay attention better than most

What a load of crap-ola. The thing that keeps a successful messenger safe is the same thing that would keep any cyclist safe: Situational awareness, honed by experience. The thing that messengers get in mass quantities that other cyclists don't is experience. Exposure. That is the difference between messengers and other bicyclists, not natural ability, or supernatural ability, or ESP or 'ninja skills.' Experience. Hours in traffic, day after day, year after year.

The proof is in the pudding. The most experienced cyclists in the world are also the safest cyclists in the world. But they ain't VC adherents. VCists certainly have a problem with the 'successful' veteran messengers, who achieve accident rates far, far better than the best accident rates ever recorded for any group of cyclists, without following so-called 'best practices.' It is easy to see why some try to turn messengers into supernatural beings with 'ninja skills' in order to dispose of facts that might be fatal to their belief system.

, including most of your readers, but you're still not infallible. When you figure how how people can learn to never get distracted, I suggest you write a book on that topic. You might get an honorary degree in cog sci to boot. In the mean time, I strongly suggest you learn and adopt some of these vc best practices, so that your riding doesn't rely so much on ideal vigilance, which is of course impossible to achieve.

You rely on vigilance, I rely on vigilance. Anyone who gets on a bike and rides into traffic will be dependent on vigilance. Of course, we all get distracted at some point. And at that point, best practice won't be much better than no practice. To believe otherwise is simple wishful thinking again, there is a lot of that around here. Without proper situational awareness, we are simply dependent on luck. No matter what our lane position happens to be. And luck, she is not reliable.

Am I making sense yet? Try pulling your head out and see if that works.

Robert

Helmet Head

Just because you ride down a street without incident, even if you do it thousands of times, doesn't mean you do it safely.
That's like saying,

I've ridden safely in that door zone literally thousands upon thousands of times. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move (suddenly opened the door while hidden from view by his short stature and the head rest), and I wasn't ready for it in any way.

No, it's not like saying that at all. I don't squeeze into door zones. When, on rare occasion, I make a decision to enter a door zone, I do so at low speed and on high alert. Unless I'm completely zoned out, of course, which is always a possibility.

I didn't say you squeezed into door zones. My point was that someone who did squeeze into door zones might think doing so was safe because he'd done it safely "literally thousands of times". But you know as well as I do that simply because in practice it has been safe so far, does not mean it will always be safe. Sooner or later, a door might fling open. What you wrote was:

... Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely down that street literally thousands upon thousands of times, in every lane position imaginable. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision.

That's very similar to the Door Zone rider concluding that the reason he got doored was because he wasn't paying attention:

... Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely in that door zone literally thousands upon thousands of times. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision.

It's also similar to the curb hugger who concludes that he was right hooked because he wasn't paying attention, ignoring the role that his positioning played in the whole thing:

... Sure, I screwed up that day, but I also rode safely near that curb literally thousands upon thousands of times. I know how to do it and how not to do it. The wreck occurred because a motorist pulled an outlandish move, and I wasn't ready for it in any way. It occurred because I wasn't even thinking about what might happen, at all. I was completely detached. Had I been properly engaged in the activity, there are several strategies I could have/would have employed to avoid or minimize this collision.

The whole point of best practices, such as these:
Avoid door zones
Move left, or at least check back, at intersection/junction approaches, to help avoid right hooks.
Move left at intersection/junction approaches, especially when fsdt is absent, to help avoid left crosses.
Move left at intersection/junction approaches, to help avoid right crosses, especially at junctions/intersections with blind alleys/streets/etc. (like a Mercedes suddenly backing out of a blind alley).is to instill good habits in us that reduce our likelihood of getting in a crash.

To say that the reason you got doored was because you weren't paying attention, rather than because you have not developed a habit to avoid door zones, is lame.

Similarly, it is lame to blame a right cross (even with a Mercedes backing out of a blind alley) on a lack of attention, rather than because you have not developed a habit to instinctively (meaning without having to think about it) position yourself to optimize sight lines and buffer zone widths in situations like that.

Bekologist

Dude, less prattle, more saddle.

You DO realize, dontchya, head, that you've admitted to riding in similar situations, similar road positions that Robert was? and with your intense 'fear from the rear' and your overactive 'negotiation' with traffic behind you, you'd likely have also missed the mercedes as it backed out?

If I could be safely sharing the lane, then I would be safely sharing the lane..... But I habitually look back before approaching any such place.......If overtaking traffic is present or approaching, and there speed indicates they are not going to turn right, I'll usually maintain position. Otherwise I will negotiate to move left.

you could very well be caught in the same situation someday. in fact with your focus on 'negotiation' with traffic behind you, likely more often.

I speculate it's your lack of traffic cycling hours that haven't gotten you compromised yet, head, not your armchair preposterisms.

Helmet Head

What is this 'Look back and move left?' My default position in the absence of same direction traffic is way out in the middle of the street. There is no need to move left from that position, because I'm already there.
If your default position is way out in the middle of the street, then why weren't you out in the middle of the street when the Mercedes pulled out? Oh, because of the car you forgot to mention in your book that was approaching from behind? The car that was still so far back that it was not affected by the crash? Allow me to revise my question: if your default position is way out in the middle of the street, then why did you move out of your default position into the bike lane before it was safe and reasonable to do so? Or did you consider it safe and reasonable to move within 6' of the parked cars despite the fact that you were approaching a blind alley?

Sure....whatever you say, HH. The cyclist who uses 'best practices' is still _dependent_ on situational awareness.

But the safety of the one who learns and follows best practices is not as dependent on situational awareness as the who fails to learn and follow the best practices. That's the point, and it's true for just about any activity in which risk is involved, from scuba diving to spaceflight, from rock climbing to skiiing. And it's also true for traffic cycling.

I see quite a bit of unnecessary lane-taking from obviously inexperienced cyclists. It is emphatically not a kick to see that.

I live and work near a large university, so I see plenty of obviously inexperienced cyclists, but I can't think of a single time I ever saw one engage in lane-taking, much less in unnecessary lane-taking. But I'll take your word for it that you see it. I'd like to see a video of that some time.

What is this 'admitted' crap? 'Hurst admits he should have been further left!' Brilliant, geniuses. Riding left is of course a major theme in my book.

Yep, that's it. Not sure why it's "crap".

Maintaining a stout buffer zone is one of just four principles of traffic cycling that I, not a big fan of principles, am willing to lay out, and my 'default position' is actually much further left than that suggested by VC fatwas.
The most common position layed out by "VC fatwas" assumes a lane wide enough to be safely shared and the presence of faster traffic: about 3' or 1 meter to the right of passing traffic.

When fsdt is not present and the lane is wide, there is not much attention paid by most LCIs as far as I can tell. I follow Franklin's advice in that case, and ride somewhere between the left and right tire tracks. With lanes too narrow to be safely shared, there is wide consensus in the VC circles to "take the lane", or "control the lane", from what you call a "centralish" position.

For instance, I suggest riding at least 10 feet from parked cars when traveling 20 mph. (p. 78) For a street with narrow lanes, that's right down the middle of the street. Personally I could be riding down the middle of a narrow street and still wish I had more space. I've never heard such a thing advocated by VCers, who tend to be such wide-eyed beginners that they see riding anywhere left of the right tire track as some extremely empowering hear-me-roar position. I urge cyclists to see the entire street surface as potentially open and available for their use, and to give more respect to the potential for hazards to nonetheless cross that space in a flash.

:roflmao:
Wide-eyed beginners??? Have you actually met any LCIs in person? Most seem to be at least in their 40s, many in the 50s and 60s, with tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles of riding experience.

You rely on vigilance, I rely on vigilance. Anyone who gets on a bike and rides into traffic will be dependent on vigilance. Of course, we all get distracted at some point. And at that point, best practice won't be much better than no practice. To believe otherwise is simple wishful thinking again, there is a lot of that around here. Without proper situational awareness, we are simply dependent on luck. No matter what our lane position happens to be. And luck, she is not reliable.
I couldn't disagree more. The whole point of cycling best practices is to establish habits so that you instinctively, without necessarily thinking about it, ride by default in positions where your sight lines are longer, your buffer zones are wider, and your conspicuity and predictability are all optimized. All of that works to reduce your chances of being unnoticed in the first place, and increases your chances of noticing any potential hazards sooner and being able to react to them sooner, independent of how distracted you might be. That is, even if you're riding distracted, if you're out near the center of the road you're more likely to be noticed sooner and you are more likely to notice a potential hazard in time than if you're riding near the parked cars. Of course, it's best to be paying attention and to be optimally positioned, and maybe ultimately paying attention is more important if you had to pick between the two, but you don't, so that question is moot. And even if lane positioning isn't very important at all as long as you are paying attention, that too is moot since we know humans are not capable of being never distracted. Thus, it's a best practice for traffic cycling to ride in a manner that optimizes your positioning for safety, just in case you happen to be distracted when something unexpected suddenly happens.

Am I making sense yet? Try pulling your head out and see if that works.

That's rude.

RobertHurst

I didn't say you squeezed into door zones. My point was that someone who did squeeze into door zones might think doing so was safe because he'd done it safely "literally thousands of times". But you know as well as I do that simply because in practice it has been safe so far, does not mean it will always be safe. Sooner or later, a door might fling open. What you wrote was:

That's very similar to the Door Zone rider concluding that the reason he got doored was because he wasn't paying attention:

It's also similar to the curb hugger who concludes that he was right hooked because he wasn't paying attention, ignoring the role that his positioning played in the whole thing:
...
To say that the reason you got doored was because you weren't paying attention, rather than because you have not developed a habit to avoid door zones, is lame.

This is an incredibly weak and tiresome line of argument, HH.

Try to figure this out. I wouldn't survive a few hundred trips down that street in the door zone. Probably more like a few dozen. That's the door zone. It's a special place.

Six feet from parked cars, completely out of the door zone in what your buddy Franklin might call the 'secondary position,' is not the door zone. It's a useful position. A good cyclist will learn to ride there as conditions permit and situations demand. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO RIDE IN THIS POSITION AND DO SO SAFELY. The requirement is situational awareness of the added hazard of a compromised position, and mitigating it. Also, knowing when to maintain the biggest possible buffer ('default position') instead of moving to the sharing position. Of course, had I the magic power to go back and do it all over again differently, I would have loved to have been as far left as humanly possible at that point -- on the sidewalk on the far side of the street would have been perfect. I would also have been thinking; directing my attention toward what might appear from behind the van; ready with my fingers poised over the brake levers; loose and ready to swerve and/or brake; riding slower; etc. But I could also have done it differently, and much safer, while remaining in the compromised position. I could have moved for the approaching car while understanding just exactly what I was doing and what extra risk it was bringing.

With proper awareness, I could have been safe in the lane sharing position, even past a blind alley. In contrast, without proper awareness, there is nowhere on the road that would be safe.

I used that position at least once on pretty much every one of my seven or eight thousand trips down that street. I could do that only because I understood the compromised position in relation to common right-side hazards of that stretch of road. When I fell back on luck one sorry day after a decade of doing it right, I got served. If any of your VC gurus ever get around to riding any street eight thousand times, give me a call.

Similarly, it is lame to blame a right cross (even with a Mercedes backing out of a blind alley) on a lack of attention, rather than because you have not developed a habit to instinctively (meaning without having to think about it) position yourself to optimize sight lines and buffer zone widths in situations like that.

You use the Mercedes incident as if it is some great indicator; you still fail to understand that VC lane position ('between the tire tracks') would not have solved that particular wreck. Not in the slightest. Try to connect the dots.

Robert

RobertHurst

... But I habitually look back before approaching any such place, at least with a mirror glance, and will move left if it is safe and clear to do so. If overtaking traffic is present or approaching, and there speed indicates they are not going to turn right, I'll usually maintain position. Otherwise I will negotiate to move left.

'Negotiate to move left??' Why aren't you already there? Is your default position on the right?

Btw, As you were 'negotiating' with approaching motorists to move left, you passed an intersection. Oh, there goes another. And another. What are you doing on the right again?

R.

RobertHurst

When fsdt is not present and the lane is wide, there is not much attention paid by most LCIs as far as I can tell.

Exactly. Because VC dogma and its most addled adherents are obsessed with passing traffic and 'close passes,' despite the sheepish insistence to the contrary. So they almost always think of their adjustments in lane position in terms of 'controlling' passing vehicles, and 'not much attention paid' to the importance of staying left for other reasons, even though those reasons turn out to be much more important. To your credit you have tried to add some of these reasons to your version of VC, but I think Forester might wonder why you are pushing something which he deliberately left out of his program.

I follow Franklin's advice in that case, and ride somewhere between the left and right tire tracks.

Why not further left? Think outside the box.

Robert

RobertHurst

I have a question for you Mr Hurst,

In terms of traffic, what is wrong with forcing drivers behind you to slow to your speed by taking the lane? I can understand why this would make you unpopular ("dickish") and I can understand why you might have legal problems (slower vehicle impeding traffic). However, some of us aren't out to win popularity contests and some of us realize that we can afford a great deal more legal problems when using an unregistered, unlicensed mode of travel. I personally think that pissing off other road users and having some minor legal trouble is a fair price to pay to maximize my own safety. Do you disagree?

If taking the lane in front of faster traffic will make you significantly safer, do it. If you find yourself doing it all the time, I believe the chance is good that something has gone gravely wrong with your approach. All of this has a lot to do with where you ride, and what kind of roads you need to use. Many cases of excess lane taking could be cured immediately with a change in route.

If you are riding where lane taking in front of faster traffic is a real necessity, then you are riding in a less than ideal situation. If maximizing safety is your true interest, you would do well to find a route with wide outside lanes, less traffic, or both. If no alternate routes are available, my condolences.

Ideally, a cyclist-driver encounter is one of mutual compromise, not a mefirstfyou from either party.

Robert