Again, how they feel about it is irrelevant to me. What is important is how they act, and how they act, by and large, is not hostile. When I assume a cooperative environment, and act accordingly, I am almost universally treated in a cooperative manner.
"Almost universally?" Odd terminology.
Let's say that 99% of motorists (a made up number) respect my right (or at least, don't get angry enough to react) to take a NOL on a arterial. So if I get passed by a couple hundred cars every day, chances are one is going to be angry enough to react. Driver profiles overrepresented in this subset include sports cars transporting two or more young males, drivers of white contracting vans, and dump truck operators.
So once every day or two, I get buzzed or swerved at while taking the lane (that's not a made up number, that really happens). Hence I avoid these routes much more than I used to.
I once again find your remarks on the subject seem quite at odds with my experience.
When I assume a hostile environment, and act accordingly, I am treated with hostility much more often.
What actions are you taking when you assume a hostile environment?
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
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
Again, I find it disheartening that a noted cycling author supports the argument that cyclists should not be riding on certain surface roads simply because doing so may inconvenience motorists (due to narrow lanes and relatively high speeds and high volumes), not to mention buying into the specious argument that riding on such roads constitutes a significant compromise in cyclist safety.
EDIT: The sentiment expressed in Robert's words comes very close to endorsing the widely held notion that cyclists do not have equal rights to the surface streets, but are essentially second-class users who have a legal, moral or practical obligation to stay out of the way of the first-class users, the drivers of motor vehicles.
I didn't say that, nor would I. Stop making stuff up.
I didn't say you explicitly said that, nor would I. Stop making stuff up.
I am simply pointing out that your words implicitly support the argument that cyclist should not be riding on certain surface roads simply because doing so may inconvenience motorists (due to narrow lanes and relatively high speeds and high volumes). Your "If maximizing safety is your true interest," words also indicate buying into the specious argument that riding on such roads constitutes a significant compromise in cyclist safety. Finally, your words come very close to endorsing the widely held notion that cyclists do not have equal rights to the surface streets, but are essentially second-class users who have a legal, moral or practical obligation to stay out of the way of the first-class users, the drivers of motor vehicles.
Nonsense! It seems to me that anyone with any actual experience would understand that cycling is the superior form of transportation, and that cyclists obviously have more freedom than any other class of road user. Cooperating with passing motorists won't change that.
No one, certainly not me, is arguing against cooperating with motorists. That cyclists and other operators of narrow vehicles (like motorcyclists) have more freedom in certain situations, not to mention the cyclists ability to use pedestrian rules from time to time, are well-known.
It's a real red flag when people express such intense sensations of being threatened by something so benign as pulling over to let a faster vehicle pass. "I won't compromise my safety." What a bunch of nonsense. Learn to ride. Learn to get along with your fellow citizens. Passing motorists deserve our sympathy, stuck in their cars like that.
Robert
Learn to ride? I'll take my crash-free (knocks on wood) record over your "a cyclist should expect to crash once a year" (paraphrased from memory) approach any time, thank you very much. Learn to ride? This is from the guy who, apparently, habitually compromises his safety by riding too far right and has a tendency to smash into cars "suddenly" pulling out of blind alleys.
The other day I was backing my car out of a diagonal parking spot and noticed something. At first I backed out very slowly, until my sight lines were such that I could see around the back of the car parked next to me to make sure the road was clear, and then, when I verified it was, backed out much faster. After doing so it donned on me that had a cyclist been riding to the right of where I was expecting and looking for vehicular traffic, I wouldn't have seen him when I hit the gas to back out, and, especially if he had been distracted for a moment, he might not have seen me in time. Yet he would have been riding in a lateral roadway position that is very typical for bicyclists, with no idea how doing so compromises his safety. And if a crash like that had happened, from his perspective it would have probably seemed like I suddenly backed out of that spot without checking at all for any traffic whatsoever, and the police may have backed him up. Technically, it arguably would have been my fault. Practically speaking, I didn't think to look for traffic so narrow and so far right before I backed out. Perhaps the Mercedes driver who "suddenly" backed out of the "blind" alley did the same thing.
Helmet Head
"Almost universally?" Odd terminology.
Let's say that 99% of motorists (a made up number) respect my right (or at least, don't get angry enough to react) to take a NOL on a arterial. So if I get passed by a couple hundred cars every day, chances are one is going to be angry enough to react. Driver profiles overrepresented in this subset include sports cars transporting two or more young males, drivers of white contracting vans, and dump truck operators.
So once every day or two, I get buzzed or swerved at while taking the lane (that's not a made up number, that really happens). Hence I avoid these routes much more than I used to.
I once again find your remarks on the subject seem quite at odds with my experience.
Well, it happens to me on the order of once every few months, so it's not 99% of motorists, but perhaps 99.999% of motorists that don't act with hositility towards me. That's what I mean by "almost universally".
What actions are you taking when you assume a hostile environment?
In general, when assuming a hostile environment, I avoid asserting my right of way when doing so might affect motorists. More specifically, I keep to the right, even at intersection approaches, even when in lanes too narrow to be shared, or when riding in marginally wide lanes. I wait for gaps before I merge across the street to make a left turn, etc. I scurry "around" and "outside of" traffic, rather than integrate myself with traffic (not that I don't filter forward in stopped traffic normally, I just use that style much more when in "assuming hostile environment" mode).
Basically, assuming a hostile environment means riding the way I used to ride before I learned and started practicing vehicular-cycling, though back then I didn't realize that that was what I was doing. I thought I was riding the only way it was practically possible to do.
genec
Again, how they feel about it is irrelevant to me. What is important is how they act, and how they act, by and large, is not hostile. When I assume a cooperative environment, and act accordingly, I am almost universally treated in a cooperative manner. When I assume a hostile environment, and act accordingly, I am treated with hostility much more often.
Gee interesting... back in post 201 you mentioned that one tends to act in response to what they feel or think... and you gave two examples... our foreign policy and how a cyclist acts in traffic.
Now you are saying that how one feels is irrelevant to YOU.
Well I can believe that perhaps YOU as an individual may isolate your feelings...
But motorists (people) in general tend to react emotionally and in actions to what they feel is going on around them.
Helmet Head
Gee interesting... back in post 201 you mentioned that one tends to act in response to what they feel or think... and you gave two examples... our foreign policy and how a cyclist acts in traffic.
Now you are saying that how one feels is irrelevant to YOU.
Well I can believe that perhaps YOU as an individual may isolate your feelings...
But motorists (people) in general tend to react emotionally and in actions to what they feel is going on around them.
What I'm saying, Gene, is that whatever feelings of frustration or hostility people may express about traffic, it's not strong enough and prevalent enough to manifest itself with a high prevalance of actual hostile behavior out there. To the contrary, the traffic environment is highly cooperative, especially to the driver or cyclist who acts cooperatively himself. At the same time, a sense of being in a hostile environment, combined with feeling as vulnerable as most cyclists feel (and rightfully so), results in behavior that, I believe, actually invites hostility, or rather, behavior that seems hostile (like close passes, "revving of engines", honks, etc.)
genec
What I'm saying, Gene, is that whatever feelings of frustration or hostility people may express about traffic, it's not strong enough and prevalent enough to manifest itself with a high prevalance of actual hostile behavior out there. To the contrary, the traffic environment is highly cooperative, especially to the driver or cyclist who acts cooperatively himself. At the same time, a sense of being in a hostile environment, combined with feeling as vulnerable as most cyclists feel (and rightfully so), results in behavior that, I believe, actually invites hostility, or rather, behavior that seems hostile (like close passes, "revving of engines", honks, etc.)
How can you invite hostility in a cooperative environment? Either it is there or it isn't.
That is akin to saying that if I act timid while standing in a movie line while waiting for tickets... someone is going to come over and confront me with hostility.
Frankly, the traffic environment is highly competitive... not cooperative. All too often it is each driver out to simply "get their own."
Helmet Head
How can you invite hostility in a cooperative environment? Either it is there or it isn't.
That is akin to saying that if I act timid while standing in a movie line while waiting for tickets... someone is going to come over and confront me with hostility.
False dichotomy, Gene. What determines whether a given environment is cooperative or hostile is determined by the typical behavior in general. A hostile environment, say downtown Baghdad, can have examples of cooperative behavior that are exceptions. Likewise, a cooperative environment, like traffic, can have examples of hostile behavior that are exceptions.
Frankly, the traffic environment is highly competitive... not cooperative. All too often it is each driver out to simply "get their own."
It's very interesting and revealing that you choose to see it that way, Gene. And it is a choice, because I choose to not to see it that way. Of course, I know many people who share your view, and they tend to get all wigged out by traffic situations and behavior that don't bother me at all. It's a choice.
genec
It's very interesting and revealing that you choose to see it that way, Gene. And it is a choice, because I choose to not to see it that way. Of course, I know many people who share your view, and they tend to get all wigged out by traffic situations and behavior that don't bother me at all. It's a choice.
So you say many people see it my way. And yet you persist that your rose colored glasses method is best as it is the method you use.
Perhaps it is time to take off the rose colored glasses and see things as they really exist... and examine your theories based on reality, not your rose colored perception.
RobertHurst
I didn't say you explicitly said that, nor would I. Stop making stuff up.
I am simply pointing out that your words implicitly support the argument that cyclist should not be riding on certain surface roads simply because doing so may inconvenience motorists (due to narrow lanes and relatively high speeds and high volumes). Your "If maximizing safety is your true interest," words also indicate buying into the specious argument that riding on such roads constitutes a significant compromise in cyclist safety. Finally, your words come very close to endorsing the widely held notion that cyclists do not have equal rights to the surface streets, but are essentially second-class users who have a legal, moral or practical obligation to stay out of the way of the first-class users, the drivers of motor vehicles.
What a steaming load.
No one, certainly not me, is arguing against cooperating with motorists. That cyclists and other operators of narrow vehicles (like motorcyclists) have more freedom in certain situations, not to mention the cyclists ability to use pedestrian rules from time to time, are well-known.
And yet, you express yearning for 'equality with motorists.' That's a badge of VCism and a badge of inexperience.
Learn to ride? I'll take my crash-free (knocks on wood) record over your
HH, my personal injury rate is far, far better than the best rates ever recorded for any group of cyclists. It has to be: The rates that seem supremely safe to typical cycling enthusiasts, who ride about 3 thousand miles per year on their chosen routes, would be putting me in the hospital on a fairly regular basis, because I'm out in traffic 25 hours per week. There's always room for improvement, of course, but I'm doing all right. I don't like talking about it, because I feel it's a jinx. Bad mojo. I welcome you or anyone comparing accident rates with mine, but you have to have ridden enough miles or hours in traffic that a valid comparison could be made. I've got about 300 thousand miles now. So, talk to me in what? 50 or 70 or 80 years and we'll see how you've done. Until then, your proclamations are worth far less than the armchair from which they are issued.
The other day I was backing my car out of a diagonal parking spot and noticed something. At first I backed out very slowly, until my sight lines were such that I could see around the back of the car parked next to me to make sure the road was clear, and then, when I verified it was, backed out much faster. After doing so it donned on me that had a cyclist been riding to the right of where I was expecting and looking for vehicular traffic, I wouldn't have seen him when I hit the gas to back out, and, especially if he had been distracted for a moment, he might not have seen me in time. Yet he would have been riding in a lateral roadway position that is very typical for bicyclists, with no idea how doing so compromises his safety. And if a crash like that had happened, from his perspective it would have probably seemed like I suddenly backed out of that spot without checking at all for any traffic whatsoever, and the police may have backed him up. Technically, it arguably would have been my fault. Practically speaking, I didn't think to look for traffic so narrow and so far right before I backed out. Perhaps the Mercedes driver who "suddenly" backed out of the "blind" alley did the same thing.
No, that's not what happened. As I've explained to you many times, the van was blocking her view of the road so completely that she would have had to get out of her car and walk back to see if anything was coming. It's interesting how you continuously resort to making things up in order to feed your monkey fist.
Robert
Helmet Head
So you say many people see it my way. And yet you persist that your rose colored glasses method is best as it is the method you use.
Perhaps it is time to take off the rose colored glasses and see things as they really exist... and examine your theories based on reality, not your rose colored perception.
There is nothing rose colored or unrealistic about seeing that JAMS are a relatively rare exception, and, for the most part, traffic is highly cooperative.
genec
There is nothing rose colored or unrealistic about seeing that JAMS are a relatively rare exception, and, for the most part, traffic is highly cooperative.
Gee, I said nothing about JAMs... I did say that traffic is more competitive than cooperative.
Tell you what... test your "cooperation" and try using a turn signal for a lane change on the freeway and tell me what it gets you.
Now explain to me why most people don't use turn signals on local freeways for lane changes... and what the perceptions are if you do?
Helmet Head
What a steaming load.
They are the blatant implications, however unintended they may be, of your own words.
And yet, you express yearning for 'equality with motorists.' That's a badge of VCism and a badge of inexperience.
I have never expressed yearning for "equality with motorists".
HH, my personal injury rate is far, far better than the best rates ever recorded for any group of cyclists. It has to be: The rates that seem supremely safe to typical cycling enthusiasts, who ride about 3 thousand miles per year on their chosen routes, would be putting me in the hospital on a fairly regular basis, because I'm out in traffic 25 hours per week. There's always room for improvement, of course, but I'm doing all right. I don't like talking about it, because I feel it's a jinx. Bad mojo. I welcome you or anyone comparing accident rates with mine, but you have to have ridden enough miles or hours in traffic that a valid comparison could be made. I've got about 300 thousand miles now. So, talk to me in what? 50 or 70 or 80 years and we'll see how you've done. Until then, your proclamations are worth far less than the armchair from which they are issued.
I'm sure you're relatively safe, and much of your own personal safety comes from experience and vigilance. But you are not infallible, and within the room for improvement that you acknowledge must be there, I suggest, based on your lack of emphasis on these practices, indeed your discounting of their value, that much of this improvement can probably come from learning and habitually adopting best practices through which lane positiioning makes you more conspicuous and predictable.
No, that's not what happened. As I've explained to you many times, the van was blocking her view of the road so completely that she would have had to get out of her car and walk back to see if anything was coming. It's interesting how you continuously resort to making things up in order to feed your monkey fist.
Robert
Basic geometry dictates that there must be a point where a car being backed out of the alley is far enough for the driver to see around the van to verify the space normally used by vehicular traffic is clear, but not quite far enough to see that the bike lane space, which is further right, is clear. See attached diagram.
57646
In the situation illustrated, the driver of the green car backing out of the alley blinded by the parked blue vehicles can see pretty far down the street, but not not as far down the bike lane. From the perspective of the cyclist (in orange), the driver can now "suddenly" back out right in front of him, especially if the cyclist happens to be distracted at the very moment the green car is first eased into the street, and doesn't notice it until it's too late.
Helmet Head
Gee, I said nothing about JAMs... I did say that traffic is more competitive than cooperative.
Tell you what... test your "cooperation" and try using a turn signal for a lane change on the freeway and tell me what it gets you.
Now explain to me why most people don't use turn signals on local freeways for lane changes... and what the perceptions are if you do?
Perfect example. I had a paragraph on this earlier, but I deleted it before I posted. When I want to change lanes on the freeway, I do usually use my turn signals. But if no one chooses to yield to me, I don't see that as "uncooperative" (or "competitive"). They have no obligation to yield to me, so they're not being uncooperative if they don't yield. I don't have a problem with that. Do you? What I mean by cooperative is that they don't run red lights, they do yield (for the most part) when they are supposed to yield, etc. I don't let my safety rely on that, as I'm constantly looking for the rare exceptions, but they truly are quite rare. And you don't need rose colored glasses to see that.
genec
Perfect example. I had a paragraph on this earlier, but I deleted it before I posted. When I want to change lanes on the freeway, I do usually use my turn signals. But if no one chooses to yield to me, I don't see that as "uncooperative" (or "competitive"). They have no obligation to yield to me, so they're not being uncooperative if they don't yield. I don't have a problem with that. Do you? What I mean by cooperative is that they don't run red lights, they do yield (for the most part) when they are supposed to yield, etc.
Sure, but on the other hand are motorists supposed to speed up and then prevent you from changing lanes... if you indicate well in advance that you intend to change lanes?
Here is really classic example... watch how motorists drive when a CHP is visible, vice when there is no CHP around. Motorists know when they are doing it right and when they are in the wrong... and the difference in behaviour is quite noticeable when LEOs are present.
mrbrklyn
INTRODUCTION
A recurring theme in Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling, and in many of his posts on this forum, is that the Forester/Effective Cycling/Vehicular Cycling/LAB/LCI approach relies too much on others obeying the rules of the road. I agree that relying on others obeying the rules of the road can be a problem, but I strongly disagree that the Forester approach is an example of this.
Robert made a statement about this recently in the Filtering (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=352947) thread up in A&S, to which I replied, but that thread has since been closed. I am reposting his statement, along with the quote to which he was replying, and my comment here.
ROBERT'S POST ATTACKING LCIS
MY REPLY
Robert, you claim that LCIs put "their faith in the traffic _system_, without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things".
No, Robert, with all due respect, you're the one who does not fully realize something. What you don't realize is that we "fellars" (at least the VC advocates and LCIs that I've met) do not put faith in the traffic system without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things.
You also don't seem to realize that a cyclist, including you, is nothing more than an individual human doing human things as well. This is why a practice that puts more reliance on the cyclist's vigilance than another practice, all other factors held equal, is a higher risk practice that the other one is.
Yeah that is wrong. I have to admit that riding in Brooklyn and NYC is somewhat unique, but it is also somewhat safer because drivers in the city, regardless of traffic regulation, actually keep their eyes peeled on the road.
That being said, from the perspective of a cyclist, the only factor that should come into account when riding is 100% avoidance, and behaving on the road in a manner which 100% reduces risk to you. Screw the cars. Most people drive two tons of plastic and steel with complete disregard for safety, even when they are tucked in their cars, let alone for a cyclist, whom drivers unanimously view of vermin to be exterminated from the rodes.
Rule 1) You must make drivers around you respect your space: IE: They need to be nervous about you and be preoccupied with avoiding you.
Rule 2) You must anticipate the fact that drivers are dangerous and do not follow traffic rules.
Rule 3) You must avoid the most devastating accidents the most (ie: Dooring, Right hand turns, and speeding past you and clipping you).
I can't see how one can ride safely at decent cruising speed according to traditional rules, and certainly never when on the right hand side of the road furthest from the drivers eyes.
In an urban environment, one must ride in the center of traffic, near the drivers window. This avoids doors, gives time and room to react to unexpected turns, and makes drivers aware of you.
In suburban driving, get yourself into the drivers lane and slow down traffic. It ***will*** save your life one day. If they are honking at you, that's good. They see you and your making them slow down.
Vehicular cycling is about mitigating risk, not eliminating risk, and that includes accounting for the risk of the cyclist failing to be vigilant 100% of the time. That's what following the rules of road (*) is about, and that's why it's the vehicular cyclist's first line of defense. Following the rules of the road makes the cyclist less likely to make a mistake (if nothing else because violating the rules of the road is often already making a mistake), and it also makes a cyclist less vulnerable to a motorist's mistake. Vigilance -- in particular, looking ahead for hazards, reading motorists and watching for errors -- is the second line of defense.
Though you don't say so explicitly, I think you would agree that your book emphasises vigilance as a higher priority than following the rules of the road. You do not discount the value of following the rules as much as Glowacz does, but it's there, mostly between the lines. And doing so puts more reliance than necessary on the cyclist's ability to stay vigilant 100% of the time, which of course is impossible (as exemplified by your crash with the Mercedes backing out of the alley).
And, as I've pointed out before, simply focusing on trying to follow the rules improves a cyclist's vigilance. You have to establish and maintain good situational awareness in order to effectively follow the rules. So by making following the rules the first priority, VC helps the cyclist be less likely to fail being vigilant, including watching for and being ready for the inevitable motorist errors.
* By "following the rules of the road" I do not mean following the absolute letter of the law like a non-thinking automaton. In general, it means being conspicuous and predictable, which means the biggies... ride on the right half of the road, use lights at night, obey traffic controls and ROW rules, follow speed and destination positioning rules (which, when done properly, maximizes sight lines and buffer spaces), stay out of door zones, don't ride too fast for conditions, don't invite sharing in narrow lanes, etc. It also means knowing the rules and understanding their purpose, so that you understand the risk and potential ramifications of not following them when you choose to do so.
Helmet Head
Sure, but on the other hand are motorists supposed to speed up and then prevent you from changing lanes... if you indicate well in advance that you intend to change lanes?
Here is really classic example... watch how motorists drive when a CHP is visible, vice when there is no CHP around. Motorists know when they are doing it right and when they are in the wrong... and the difference in behaviour is quite noticeable when LEOs are present.
Gene, I realize I don't have the ROW to move laterally until it's clear. If someone speeds up to pass me sooner, I see that as cooperation.
You say they're less likely to do that if an LEO is around? Perhaps. So what? Most drivers aren't sure what exactly is legal or is not, and are naturally apt to err on the side of caution when an LEO is around. They even tend to slow down to the speed limit when an LEO is present. That might be an indication of increased cooperation with the literal law, but it's not an indication of more cooperation with each other.
mrbrklyn
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=57646&thumb=1&d=1193694559
Yeah that is one stupid place to be riding a bicycle,
Ruben
Helmet Head
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=57646&thumb=1&d=1193694559
Yeah that is one stupid place to be riding a bicycle,
Ruben
Well, maybe you can help Robert realize that. He has acknowledged he should have been further left, but clearly did not consider this to be sufficiently important to mention it in his book. He says that this is because he was writing about the importance of paying attention, but in his post-crash analysis, he found going "a tad too fast" for the conditions was sufficiently relevant to mention, though that too has nothing to do with paying attention.
My point is that he didn't mention riding too far right as a contributory factor because he didn't recognize it might have been a contributory factor, and that's why he habitually (apparently) rides that far right on this street (and, presumably, others like it).
Allister
Well, maybe you can help Robert realize that. He has acknowledged he should have been further left, but clearly did not consider this to be sufficiently important to mention it in his book. He says that this is because he was writing about the importance of paying attention, but in his post-crash analysis, he found going "a tad too fast" for the conditions was sufficiently relevant to mention, though that too has nothing to do with paying attention.
My point is that he didn't mention riding too far right as a contributory factor because he didn't recognize it might have been a contributory factor, and that's why he habitually (apparently) rides that far right on this street (and, presumably, others like it).
One day, if you ride enough, you're going to have a crash too. I wonder if you'll obsess over it as much as you do this single incident. It is hilarious, though, that you think you understand the events surrounding it better than the person actually involved.
Helmet Head
One day, if you ride enough, you're going to have a crash too. I wonder if you'll obsess over it as much as you do this single incident. It is hilarious, though, that you think you understand the events surrounding it better than the person actually involved.
I don't think I understand the events surrounding this particular incident better than Robert.
I do think I understand the value of conspicuous lane positioning more than Robert, and so appreciate it more than he does. And that applies in general, and therefore in this particular incident too. I think his neglecting to mention the potential contributory role of his being too far right in his book, though he has acknowledged it here, while he did mention the potential contributory role of him riding a tad too fast in his book, is evidence of him discounting the value of conspicuous lane positioning. But, then, his whole book is evidence of that. He goes out of his way to stress that the reason to ride further left, when you ride further, is not to make you the cyclist more conspicuous, or to improve the sight lines from drivers to you, but to improve your sight lines to them, and to increase the buffer zones.
mrbrklyn
Well, maybe you can help Robert realize that. He has acknowledged he should have been further left, but clearly did not consider this to be sufficiently important to mention it in his book. He says that this is because he was writing about the importance of paying attention, but in his post-crash analysis, he found going "a tad too fast" for the conditions was sufficiently relevant to mention, though that too has nothing to do with paying attention.
My point is that he didn't mention riding too far right as a contributory factor because he didn't recognize it might have been a contributory factor, and that's why he habitually (apparently) rides that far right on this street (and, presumably, others like it).
Yeah - that accident has nothing to do with riding to fast (whatever thay means - what are these mopeds or bikes?). Clearly there is no speed possible to avoid that collision above walking speed. The Biker needs to be IN THE ROAD so that he could see at least 20 feet inside any driveway from a 30 foot distance.
Is this not obvious?
He'd also get doored in that picture or hurt a pedestrian who pops outs between cars, and we won't mention children and their balls.
Ruben
Helmet Head
Yeah - that accident has nothing to do with riding to fast (whatever thay means - what are these mopeds or bikes?). Clearly there is no speed possible to avoid that collision above walking speed. The Biker needs to be IN THE ROAD so that he could see at least 20 feet inside any driveway from a 30 foot distance.
Is this not obvious?
Well, it's my picture based on my understanding of the situation as depicted in his book and clarified on this forum. But if the diagram shows anything to be significantly misrepresenting the situation, I would be happy if he would point it out so that I could correct it.
He'd also get doored in that picture or hurt a pedestrian who pops outs between cars, and we won't mention children and their balls.
Robert claims the 4 1/2 foot width of the bike lane, plus the space between the parking stripe and the parked cars, put him at about 6' from the doors, riding just inside the bike lane. It's hard to believe, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one. I've asked him for the street names so we could look on google and at aerial photos, but he hasn't provided that (I seem to recall he did in the past, but I can't remember for sure).
mrbrklyn
Similarly, if a cyclist views the traffic environment as hostile, he is likely to act as if the environment is hostile, and those in traffic are that much more likely to treat him in a hostile manner.
What are you talking about? This is not a game of duck duck goose and freeze tag. Car Traffic IS HOSTILE. Not only that, but repeated studies show that humans in their cars ***become*** more hostile and aggressive. And their stress levels goes up.
When someone in their car blows past you at 60 miles an hour and accelerating, blaring their horn at you and nearly clips your, coming within inches of your handlebars, all while your passively sitting on the right side of the road cruising at 15 miles an hour, THAT IS HOSTILITY. And your life is in danger. So don't screw up and stay alert and aggressive on those rodes. Everything you do communicates to the drivers around you and everything should be "Hey stupid!!! Be CAREFUL. I'm riding my bike here!"
Ruben
RobertHurst
Well, it's my picture based on my understanding of the situation as depicted in his book and clarified on this forum. But if the diagram shows anything to be significantly misrepresenting the situation, I would be happy if he would point it out so that I could correct it.
I doubt that, since I've told you a few zillion times that the driver did not inch her car back into the bike lane, as depicted in your diagram -- the car was already going fast when it appeared at the mouth of the alley. Remember the reference to Rockford Files? Is your memory really that bad or are you just pretendin?
This driver did not look at all. She just went for it. She said to herself, "I'll punch the accelerator now and ask questions later." She could have at least yelled 'four!' or something.
Robert claims the 4 1/2 foot width of the bike lane, plus the space between the parking stripe and the parked cars, put him at about 6' from the doors, riding just inside the bike lane. It's hard to believe, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one. I've asked him for the street names so we could look on google and at aerial photos, but he hasn't provided that (I seem to recall he did in the past, but I can't remember for sure).
I've told you exactly where it was, but I guess you forgot. You really need to work on your memory.
Anyway, of course I should have been further left. OF COURSE. My 'default position' on that street is near the left tire track. But the real point I've been trying to get across here is that there are a lot of things I did wrong there, and lane position was just one part of it. A shift in lane position alone wouldn't have solved that problem at all. There were other _more important_ things that needed to be done to ensure my safety which weren't done. These things were non-lane-position related. Why would anyone talk only of lane position in the face of that reality? Only a religious VCer would try to spin that yarn. So, there's a lesson in that particular wreck for someone who hasn't already chugged the Koolaid, if you can get past all the huff and puff. And it is completely silly to think, from an armchair, that someone could ride in urban environments without ever riding in a 'secondary position' past alleys or driveways. Please, get a grip on reality. It is worse than useless to advise cyclists to never compromise when compromise is inevitable.
Robert
mrbrklyn
If she came gunning out of the alley, you did nothing wrong. However, if you were in the road, IN THE ROAD, not to the right of the car lane, you'd had avoided this accident completely. And that is the fact of most accidents. Speed has no baring on this. It just doesn't take that much time to stop. The only means of avoiding that kind of accident is to put more than reasonable space between you and any possible oncoming objects.
That would mean IN THE ROAD.
The rule is, 25 feet or more from where anything can come out at you from the side.
Ruben
Laika
(a typical residential lot is 50-75' wide)
I dare say my cycling is quite a bit more urban than yours, and the average residential lot width where I cycle hovers rights around 20'. My own lot is 18'. There are plenty narrower and not many much wider.
Laika
If she came gunning out of the alley, you did nothing wrong. However, if you were in the road, IN THE ROAD, not to the right of the car lane, you'd had avoided this accident completely. And that is the fact of most accidents. Speed has no baring on this. It just doesn't take that much time to stop. The only means of avoiding that kind of accident is to put more than reasonable space between you and any possible oncoming objects.
That would mean IN THE ROAD.
The rule is, 25 feet or more from where anything can come out at you from the side.
Ruben
I'm gussing you live in brooklyn, right? How do you manage to stay 25' from anything coming out from the side on our 40' wide one-way streeets lined with driveways on either side, especially considering that both sides of the street are parking lanes?
Allister
Anyway, of course I should have been further left. OF COURSE. My 'default position' on that street is near the left tire track. But the real point I've been trying to get across here is that there are a lot of things I did wrong there, and lane position was just one part of it. A shift in lane position alone wouldn't have solved that problem at all. There were other _more important_ things that needed to be done to ensure my safety which weren't done. These things were non-lane-position related. Why would anyone talk only of lane position in the face of that reality? Only a religious VCer would try to spin that yarn. So, there's a lesson in that particular wreck for someone who hasn't already chugged the Koolaid, if you can get past all the huff and puff. And it is completely silly to think, from an armchair, that someone could ride in urban environments without ever riding in a 'secondary position' past alleys or driveways. Please, get a grip on reality. It is worse than useless to advise cyclists to never compromise when compromise is inevitable.
I think it's pretty clear by now that HH is a bit of a clueless newbie. He's like a recent religious convert that thinks he has all the answers and needs to proselytise to everyone else of the error of their ways, even those that converted many years ago and realised that, in practice, dogma will only get you so far. You'd think he'd have come to the same conclusion by now, but it really only comes with experience, which despite all these years of trolling BF, he still clearly lacks.
RobertHurst
I'm sure you're relatively safe, and much of your own personal safety comes from experience and vigilance. But you are not infallible, and within the room for improvement that you acknowledge must be there, I suggest, based on your lack of emphasis on these practices, indeed your discounting of their value, that much of this improvement can probably come from learning and habitually adopting best practices through which lane positiioning makes you more conspicuous and predictable.
'Conspicuous and predictable'. It's as good as an ear tag. When you hear those words you can be pretty sure you're dealing with someone who doesn't actually ride very much.
People, move left to maximize space to inevitable right-side hazards like speeding Mercedes. Move left to maximize your own sightlines and space. There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'), who will inevitably overlook cyclists even if they're in prime lane position (that is, if they look at all). Those who feel comforted by maximization of 'conspicuity and predictability' are in for a wild ride, for sure. And, although I am writing in something not too far from an armchair right now, I assure you I speak from experience.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. HH brought up accident rates. Armchair bloviating is not compelling. I'd be more than willing to admit that my riding style is not as safe as some other riding style -- say, HH-style 'best practices,' whatever they are this week -- if someone can present some good evidence to bolster their pronouncements. Even personal experience might be compelling to me; I always listen to those with as much or more experience than I have. But there aren't any VCist followers whose experience comes close, that I know of. Once a rider becomes experienced, they have already shed their dogmatic visions of traffic cycling. Experience does that. It ruins dogma. It spoils VCism.
That's why relative inexperience is a common trait among those who tout 'Vehicular Cycling' as a comprehensive system. Something to think about for those capable of thought.
Robert
RobertHurst
If she came gunning out of the alley, you did nothing wrong. However, if you were in the road, IN THE ROAD, not to the right of the car lane, you'd had avoided this accident completely. And that is the fact of most accidents. ...
It is true with many accidents, but probably not this one. If people want to use this wreck as some kind of great indicator of this or that, they will have to accept the reality of the situation without supplying the narrative that is most convenient for their argument. I wasn't paying much attention. The car crossed the entire lane in literally a split second, during which the solid collision occurred despite my wild swerve. Even if I had been in the center of the lane, I still would have had to have my attention properly focused to avoid such a collision. Even then I may not have. Five feet wouldn't have been all that helpful in this particular instance. That's the best guess of the guy who was there.
The rule is, 25 feet or more from where anything can come out at you from the side.
That's the rule, huh? Maybe get a tape measure. That would be across the street.
But if the space is available, I say use it.
Robert
The Human Car
I think it's pretty clear by now that HH is a bit of a clueless newbie. He's like a recent religious convert that thinks he has all the answers and needs to proselytise to everyone else of the error of their ways, even those that converted many years ago and realised that, in practice, dogma will only get you so far. You'd think he'd have come to the same conclusion by now, but it really only comes with experience, which despite all these years of trolling BF, he still clearly lacks.
+1 An additional problem I think is some “experts” here think that by doing one more lap around the block they have added to their experience points when in reality there is a whole world out there that they will never experience.
There is also some other quality that I am sensing that reminds me of when the State makes the claim that most of our roads are bike friendly. We’ll you can’t argue with the numbers but if you map it out you’ll also notice that almost all of these bike friendly roads are NOT where most people live. It is totally possible to have a total affirmation of your views and still not have most people being able to relate to those views.
mrbrklyn
I'm gussing you live in brooklyn, right? How do you manage to stay 25' from anything coming out from the side on our 40' wide one-way streeets lined with driveways on either side, especially considering that both sides of the street are parking lanes?
Most are wider that 40 feet and those which aren't generally have no drive ways. In any event, you ride down the center of a side street.
Ruben
LCI_Brian
Against my better judgment, I'm going to jump into A&S again for a moment, because I wanted to respond to an interesting point that Robert brought up:
As I have stated repeatedly, I believe the safest rider on the road would be one who both follows the rules of the road (traffic laws) and maintains situational awareness, and the least safe rider is the one who rides contrary to the rules and without situational awareness. We can agree on that, right? However, the rider who maintains situational awareness while breaking the law is going to be a safer cyclist than the one who rides lawfully but without situational awareness.
I can certainly think of some examples where the last sentence is true. But that comparison doesn't address the fact that lawful cycling can encompass a wide variety of behaviors, some of which may be safer than others. For example, in a situation where I'm approaching parked cars, the law allows me to use the full lane to stay out of the door zone. However, the law doesn't require me to use the full lane, so it would be just as legal to ride inches from the car doors at speed. It's not clear to me that you're considering that there is often a choice of multiple lawful behaviors, each with different risks - or do you lump that choice in as part of situational awareness?
mrbrklyn
It is true with many accidents, but probably not this one. If people want to use this wreck as some kind of great indicator of this or that, they will have to accept the reality of the situation without supplying the narrative that is most convenient for their argument. I wasn't paying much attention. The car crossed the entire lane in literally a split second, during which the solid collision occurred despite my wild swerve. Even if I had been in the center of the lane, I still would have had to have my attention properly focused to avoid such a collision. Even then I may not have. Five feet wouldn't have been all that helpful in this particular instance. That's the best guess of the guy who was there.
I don't know who your blaming any more, yourself, her or the traffic. In any event. Five feet is a lot of distances when accounting for the angles into the driveway. It would have given you a much greater chance to avoid the accident and to minimize the damage by either sweving or even diving off the bike onto the hood of the car. Also, vision out of the side of your vision filed is especially sensitive to movement. That field grows conically outward. Even if you weren't paying attention, having a visual cue at the periphery of your field of vision would have caused a startling reaction in your nervous system as a reflex. It would have gotten you attention fast. So unless your telling me you were sleeping on the bike with your eyes closed, I have no answers. Ride down the center of the road. If your telling me that she barreled out so fast, and I'm not sure a Posche could even do this from a cold stop, that even driving down the center of the road would have made no difference in the results... well... your off the hook and she should be facing a fat law suite.
Ruben
RobertHurst
Against my better judgment, I'm going to jump into A&S again for a moment, because I wanted to respond to an interesting point that Robert brought up:
I can certainly think of some examples where the last sentence is true. But that comparison doesn't address the fact that lawful cycling can encompass a wide variety of behaviors, some of which may be safer than others. For example, in a situation where I'm approaching parked cars, the law allows me to use the full lane to stay out of the door zone. However, the law doesn't require me to use the full lane, so it would be just as legal to ride inches from the car doors at speed. It's not clear to me that you're considering that there is often a choice of multiple lawful behaviors, each with different risks - or do you lump that choice in as part of situational awareness?
You can include destination positioning and speed positioning and any other lane positioning 'rules' you want to include. The cyclist who follows these rules will still be dependent on situational awareness and the ability to anticipate motorist mistakes. The cyclist who doesn't follow these rules but maintains vigilance will still be safer than the rider who happens to be following the rules perfectly but without vigilance.
There is no road position that would ensure the safety of a daydreaming bicyclist in traffic. As I hope I made clear in my book, maintaining a good buffer to right side hazards in urban traffic is better than not maintaining a good buffer to right side hazards. But it is naive to think of an advantageous lane position as something that will significantly increase one's safety in the absence of proper awareness, as HH does and probably a lot of other impressionable beginners do as well. Motor vehicles will cross a whole lot of city surface in an instant -- long before you know what's happening, if you're not ready for it. That fat buffer can and will be erased in a split second, even by relatively slow movers. Twenty miles per hour is thirty feet per second.
Robert
RobertHurst
I don't know who your blaming any more, yourself, her or the traffic. In any event. Five feet is a lot of distances when accounting for the angles into the driveway. It would have given you a much greater chance to avoid the accident and to minimize the damage by either sweving or even diving off the bike onto the hood of the car. Also, vision out of the side of your vision filed is especially sensitive to movement. That field grows conically outward. Even if you weren't paying attention, having a visual cue at the periphery of your field of vision would have caused a startling reaction in your nervous system as a reflex. It would have gotten you attention fast. So unless your telling me you were sleeping on the bike with your eyes closed, I have no answers. Ride down the center of the road. If your telling me that she barreled out so fast, and I'm not sure a Posche could even do this from a cold stop, that even driving down the center of the road would have made no difference in the results... well... your off the hook and she should be facing a fat law suite.
Ruben
I blame myself. That's the whole point. It's just that my blaming myself extends to many aspects beyond the lane positioning issue. Crazy, eh? Focusing on lane position alone is horribly simplistic, and is nearly as dangerous as not focusing on anything at all.
The law blames her, as it should. No grey areas there.
In the end I'm not off the hook at all, but lying in the road bleeding with a broken bicycle and very lucky I wasn't more seriously injured.
Robert
The Human Car
What I'm saying, Gene, is that whatever feelings of frustration or hostility people may express about traffic, it's not strong enough and prevalent enough to manifest itself with a high prevalance of actual hostile behavior out there. To the contrary, the traffic environment is highly cooperative, especially to the driver or cyclist who acts cooperatively himself. At the same time, a sense of being in a hostile environment, combined with feeling as vulnerable as most cyclists feel (and rightfully so), results in behavior that, I believe, actually invites hostility, or rather, behavior that seems hostile (like close passes, "revving of engines", honks, etc.)
Ya just like she was asking for it by the way she dressed and there is nothing wrong with the guy’s attitude. :rolleyes:
Seriously this is really off base the main problem is with motorists thinking that bikes do not belong in the road. For me the determination for the likely hood of a motorist acting out is your locality (friendly vs aggressive,) road type, route type (a side road that is being clamed by drivers as a faster alternate route,) driver angst (rush hour, pre/post congestion,) number of cyclists riding in similar fashion on that road, streetscape (does it say cars rule.) If you get the right combination of these things then a motorists acting out is a likely event.
Bekologist
Viewing a given environment as hostile is, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at Beck's riding experiences as another [1], [2]. I'm sorry, do you mean 1) while taking the lane on the approach to a bridge deck, a driver decided to harass me and later run me off the road? and 2) while fully taking the lane, drivers can still overlook bicyclists and pull completly illegal moves that endanger bicyclists and other road users? no, i see that you don't; you mean something completely different....
In general, when assuming a hostile environment, I avoid asserting my right of way when doing so might affect motorists. More specifically, I keep to the right, even at intersection approaches, even when in lanes too narrow to be shared, or when riding in marginally wide lanes. I wait for gaps before I merge across the street to make a left turn, etc. I scurry "around" and "outside of" traffic, rather than integrate myself with traffic (not that I don't filter forward in stopped traffic normally, I just use that style much more when in "assuming hostile environment" mode).
yep. I wasn't doing any of that, oh great soothsayer. :rolleyes: sounds like you have great familiarity with this style; I emphatically don't ride like that and haven't for a couple of decades. Is this the way YOU bicycle, head, when you aren't safely grouped with a pack of LCI poseurs and foresterite groupies? -oh, i forget, most of your bicycling is purely theoretical. my apologies for mistaking your armchair musings for actual bicycling experience.
To take the 'great soothsayer' at face value, the 'self fufilling prophecy' I've brought on myself is 1)act like a vehicle, take the lane, and some drivers wil still be greatly preturbed or 2) act like a vehicle, take the lane, and some drivers will pull blatently illegal moves that endanger other road users.
The other day I was backing my car out of a diagonal parking spot and noticed something. At first I backed out very slowly, until my sight lines were such that I could see around the back of the car parked next to me to make sure the road was clear, and then, when I verified it was (CLEAR FOR CARS, NOT BIKES, HEAD), backed out much faster. After doing so it donned on me that had a cyclist been riding to the right of where I was expecting and looking for vehicular traffic, I wouldn't have seen him when I hit the gas to back out...... Practically speaking, I didn't think to look for traffic so narrow and so far right before I backed out. GREAT! Head's just another crappy motorist not watching for bicyclists!
Bekologist
head, you'll come to grips with this activity called 'bicycling' soon.
Your stalwart yet fallacious insistence on being able to positively affect motorists' perspectives of you by your position in the road, your hand signals, your head bobs and butt waggles, IS hilariously naive.
You might THINK you're affecting them positively, but that's self delusion at its finest. the motorists are still thinking ''effin' biker needs to get out of my way, dammnit!"
mrbrklyn
I blame myself. That's the whole point. It's just that my blaming myself extends to many aspects beyond the lane positioning issue. Crazy, eh? Focusing on lane position alone is horribly simplistic, and is nearly as dangerous as not focusing on anything at all.
The law blames her, as it should. No grey areas there.
In the end I'm not off the hook at all, but lying in the road bleeding with a broken bicycle and very lucky I wasn't more seriously injured.
Robert
If you blame yourself after stating clearly that she would have hit you even if you were in the middle of the road, then your really undermining any credibility.
Its time to put this thread to bead.
Ruben
RobertHurst
If you blame yourself after stating clearly that she would have hit you even if you were in the middle of the road, then your really undermining any credibility.
Its time to put this thread to bead.
Ruben
That's not exactly what I said mr. brklyn. I said that a better lane position alone wouldn't have been enough. It would still require my paying attention to what in the hell was going on, and that is the obvious key to this whole thing. And by whole thing I mean not just this wreck but the entirety of traffic safety.
So yes, I blame myself, because, while optimal lane position alone wouldn't have been enough, I do believe that I could have avoided the collision if I had been properly engaged in what I was doing.
Of course, following your rule of 25 feet would have been a great choice at that time, as it would have put me in the bike lane on the other side of the street. She didn't make it across quite that far.
Robert
Laika
Most are wider that 40 feet and those which aren't generally have no drive ways. In any event, you ride down the center of a side street.
Ruben
Most side streets are in the 40' range...I'm talking about the one way side streets here. And in my part of Brooklyn- in fact, in every part of Brooklyn I know- those sidestreets are riddled with proper driveways, garages, curb cuts and all manner of devices by which cars can enter the road perpendicular to traffic. And center lane positioning on streets like Dean, Pacific, Bergen, etc. is the very essence of arrogant ******baggery.
LCI_Brian
The cyclist who doesn't follow these rules but maintains vigilance will still be safer than the rider who happens to be following the rules perfectly but without vigilance.
It depends on what degree the rules/laws are not being followed and how much that can be offset by vigilance. For example, no amount of vigilance is going to help if you're riding the wrong way, 20 mph, in the door zone. But I presume you're talking about urban situations in which the cyclist chooses to not to follow a rule/law, knows the potential danger, and maintains vigilance to offset the danger.
This is not to say that I advocate breaking rules/laws and using vigilance to offset - if the popularity of cycling increased with this kind of riding as the norm, I think you'd see a lot of bike/bike collisions. But I'm sure you'd agree it doesn't have to be an either/or situation for most cyclists - they can follow rules/laws AND be vigilant.
There is no road position that would ensure the safety of a daydreaming bicyclist in traffic. As I hope I made clear in my book, maintaining a good buffer to right side hazards in urban traffic is better than not maintaining a good buffer to right side hazards. But it is naive to think of an advantageous lane position as something that will significantly increase one's safety in the absence of proper awareness, as HH does and probably a lot of other impressionable beginners do as well. Motor vehicles will cross a whole lot of city surface in an instant -- long before you know what's happening, if you're not ready for it. That fat buffer can and will be erased in a split second, even by relatively slow movers. Twenty miles per hour is thirty feet per second.
I haven't read your book, although I've skimmed it, and I've seen some of your posts here. Generally +1 on the above, although in the suburban environments HH and I are in (where there's less need to deal with right side hazards but where traffic overtakes at a higher speed differential), I would rate the potential benefit of lane position somewhere between you and HH would. (Well, maybe that's not saying much!) :D
Bekologist
LCI brian, because of this "Suburban environment" so are you saying you and Head ride to the right a lot in your suburban environment, positioned according to speed, riding in the bike lanes :eek: that are on a lot of SoCal's suburban roads?
If the right side hazards are eliminated, and intersections are few, a bicyclist can and should ride in a safe lane position to the right, to the right of faster traffic. often times on accomodated roads, that's in the bike lane! :roflmao: even for the grand poobahs of VC.
are you often riding in packs of LCI groupies and forestorites versus solo riding? I suspect HH rides more in packs of LCI groupies than solo nowadays, seems he's always talking about his driving cars here and there....
I find heads' unceasing criticism of Robert's momentary lapse into distracted bicycling very telling- of head's inexperience riding a bicycle.
Additionally, if head rode a fair bit, he would realize the fallacy of his platform- destination positioning and being in the center of the lane at every intersection, curb cut and alley is 1) NOT a realistic appraisal of bicycling in the urban environment, and 2) not going to prevent motorists from violating your ROW.
Like Robert has repeatedly pointed out in this thread and in his book, bicycling in traffic is give and take.
Head's armchair postulations are worthless hyperbole.
Helmet Head
I think it's pretty clear by now that HH is a bit of a clueless newbie. He's like a recent religious convert that thinks he has all the answers and needs to proselytise to everyone else of the error of their ways, even those that converted many years ago and realised that, in practice, dogma will only get you so far. You'd think he'd have come to the same conclusion by now, but it really only comes with experience, which despite all these years of trolling BF, he still clearly lacks.
Baseless ad hominem attack.
Bekologist
ah, but Allister is spot on with his assessment, head.
it is realistic. because we understand your lack of bicycling experience, it is telling. if you don't have that much experience, SHUT UP AND RIDE. more saddle, less prattle, head.
so what if it's 'attacking the messenger? your sophmoric, starry eyed 'vehicular' armchair musings merit criticism, head. :rolleyes: and based on your relatively new foray into 'vehicular' bicycling :roflmao: , yes, YOU deserve criticism for your verbose prattle in this forum.
Helmet Head
'Conspicuous and predictable'. It's as good as an ear tag. When you hear those words you can be pretty sure you're dealing with someone who doesn't actually ride very much.
People, move left to maximize space to inevitable right-side hazards like speeding Mercedes. Move left to maximize your own sightlines and space. There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'),
...
That's why relative inexperience is a common trait among those who tout 'Vehicular Cycling' as a comprehensive system. Something to think about for those capable of thought.
Robert
Your need to insult belies a lack of confidence in your position. The value of being conspicuous and predictable is understood by experienced cyclists worldwide, Robert. It's not something, I, Forester, or the League of American Bicyclists made up. It's a major reason we wear bright clothing and use lights and reflectors at night (practices the value of which you downplay in your book). Here's a British version of explaining the value of conspicuity.Away from junctions, you should ride in one of two standard positions, according to circumstances. The primary riding position is in the centre of the leftmost [rightmost in the U.S.] moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel. Here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers and those who might cross your path, and you will have the best two-way visibility of side roads and other features along the road.
...
The primary riding position should therefore by your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasise your presence to traffic ahead, of when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you dangerously. It is often the best position, too, on roads where there is no following traffic and on multi-lane roads where the traffic flow is light.
-- John Franklin, Cyclecraft, p 58
What Franklin means by the zone of maximum surveillance - the area where drivers focus most of their attention most of the time - is a concept that I believe you don't even mention in your book, except perhaps to downplay it.
sbhikes
The other day I was backing my car out of a diagonal parking spot and noticed something. At first I backed out very slowly, until my sight lines were such that I could see around the back of the car parked next to me to make sure the road was clear, and then, when I verified it was (CLEAR FOR CARS, NOT BIKES, HEAD), backed out much faster. After doing so it donned on me that had a cyclist been riding to the right of where I was expecting and looking for vehicular traffic, I wouldn't have seen him when I hit the gas to back out...... Practically speaking, I didn't think to look for traffic so narrow and so far right before I backed out.
So you did not look for pedestrians either? Wow. Basic defensive driving 101.
Helmet Head
'Conspicuous and predictable'. It's as good as an ear tag. When you hear those words you can be pretty sure you're dealing with someone who doesn't actually ride very much.
People, move left to maximize space to inevitable right-side hazards like speeding Mercedes. Move left to maximize your own sightlines and space. There is thus no need to think about maximizing visibility for motorists ('conspicuous and predictable'), who will inevitably overlook cyclists even if they're in prime lane position (that is, if they look at all). Those who feel comforted by maximization of 'conspicuity and predictability' are in for a wild ride, for sure. And, although I am writing in something not too far from an armchair right now, I assure you I speak from experience.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
...
Apparently, remembering to move left "to maximize space to inevitable right-side hazards like speeding Mercedes" is not good enough. The proof is in the pudding indeed: you were riding too far right, "OF COURSE". Because it's obviously not good enough, even for a cyclist as experienced as you, there clearly is a need for more. Experienced as you are, you're not infallible. If you're not paying attention (or even if you are), you may not realize there is a potential right-side hazard coming up, which is of course what happened here. That's why Forester emphasizes destination position for the sake of destination positioning. Your approach requires the cyclist to actually become aware of a hazard before he optimizes for it. Now, the more a cyclist is generally vigilant, the better this method works, but it's reactive. But the VC approach doesn't depend on vigilance - it's about ingraining best practices as automatic habits, so that you don't need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it: it's proactive. This is why Franklin teaches us about the zone of maximum surveillance - where drivers focus most of their attention most of the time - and the value of riding in it, in the primary riding position, simply for the sake of riding in it, whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so.
You are arguably the founder of the idea that the reason to move left is "to maximize space to inevitable right-side hazards like speeding Mercedes", and it's obviously not good enough, even for you. Had you integrated the best practices espoused by Forester and Franklin and other cycling experts into your habits, you would have been much more likely to have been further left automatically, even though you were distracted. That's what developing good habits is all about. Doing the right thing while you're paying attention is much easier than doing the right thing even when you're distracted. Being distracted is no excuse for not following best practices.
That's why relative inexperience is a common trait among those who tout 'Vehicular Cycling' as a comprehensive system. Something to think about for those capable of thought.
You deride vc for not being a comprehensive system, yet in it's stead you espouse an approach (that cannot even be called a system) that only works if the cyclist happens to be paying attention (hence your obsession for the need for vigilance). Well, the more attention and vigilance the better, and I continue to applaud your efforts to emphasize that, but what you continue to miss, is the fact that we cyclists, including you, are humans, and are not capable of paying 100% attention all the time to everything. Therefore, we need a system, a set of best practices, that works to protect us even when we're not paying attention. This is the foundation for safety in everything from airplane piloting to SCUBA diving, from defensive driving to sky diving. Are any of those systems comprehensive in the sense of being infallible? Of course not. Is any practitioner of these systems even better off if he pays more attention? Of course. But that doesn't mean the value of these systems needs to downplayed. And so it is with vehicular cycling: a set of best practices for cycling safely and efficiently in traffic.
Helmet Head
So you did not look for pedestrians either? Wow. Basic defensive driving 101.
A pedestrian would have noticed me backing out and stopped. There was no potential of collision with a 3 mph pedestrian, especially considering I've never seen peds walk there (behind diagonally parked cars). They tend to walk along the sidewalk. But cyclists riding 15-20+ mph (it's a slight downhill) along a course just behind the trunks of the angle-parked cars is quite common, I realized in retrospect. The vast majority of drivers would not even think of it in retrospect, unless a cyclist actually collided into the side of the car.